Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 142

McGRAW-HILL SERIES IN

MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
ROBERT M. DRAKE, JR. / STEPHEN J. KLINE
Consulting Editors

Beggs Mechanism
Cambel and Jennings Gas Dynamics
Csanady Theory of Thrbomachines
Durelli, Phillips, and Tsao Introduction to the Theoretical
and Experimental Analysis of Stress and Strain
Echert Introduction to Heat and Mass Transfer
Eckert and Drahe Heat and Mass Transfer
Grober, Erh, and Grigull Fundamentals of Heat Transfer
Ham, Crane, and Rogers Mechanics of Machinery
Hartenberg and Denavit Kinematic Synthesis of Linkages
Hartman Dynamics of Machinery
Hinze Turbulence
7COMPACT HEAT
Jacobsen and Ayre Engineering Vibrations
Kays and London Compact Heat Exchangers
Phelan Fundamentals of Mechanical Design
E )( ~D H A 1ST (]- E I?~ ~,,,—
Raven Automatic Control Engineering S a c 0 N 0 E B I TI 0 N
Sabershy Elements of Engineering Thermodynamics
Schench Theories of Engineering Experimentation
Schlichting Boundary Layer Theory
Shigley Dynamic Analysis of Machines
Shigley Kinematic Analysis of Mechanisms
Shigley Mechanical Engineering Design W. M. K A Y S
Shigley Theory of Machines //
Spalding and Cole Engineering Thermodynamics Professor of Mechanical Engineering
Stoecker Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Stanford University
Wilcoch and Booser Bearing Design and Application

A. L. LONDON
Professor of Mechanical Engineering
Stanford University

McGRAW-HILL BOOK COMPANY

NEW YOEE 5AN FEANcI5co TOEONTO LONDON


i_I 1/Li !L)V~.1 1

Preface
1’1 For many years the only generally available basic heat transfer and flow-friction
fi data of sufficient accuracy for heat-exchanger design was for flow through and over
banks of circular tubes. The need for small-size and lightweight heat exchangers in
all varieties of powered vehicles from automobiles to spacecraft, as well as in a
multitude of other applications, has resulted in the development of many heat transfer
surfaces that are much more compact than can be practically realized with circular
3Lo3 tubes. In addition, many of these surfaces possess other characteristics that are
superior to circular tubes. However, lack of basic heat transfer and flow-friction
design data, and a lack of understanding of the basic mechanisms involved, for a
long period of time restricted their use to heat exchangers that could be developed
by cut-and-try methods. It ultimately became apparent that rationally optimized
heat-exchanger design, the development of new surfaces of superior characteristics,
and the development of methods of fabrication of compact surfaces for high-
temperature service could only take place after the basic characteristics of the
already existing surfaces were known and understood.
Recognizing the need for such data the U.S. Navy Bureau of Ships initiated
in 1945 a test program at the Naval Engineering Experiment Station, Annapolis,
Maryland. In 1947, the Office of Naval Research, in cooperation with the Bureaus
of Ships and Aeronautics, extended this work by establishing a similar program at
Stanford University. Later the Atomic Energy Commission joined in support.
A number of manufacturers provided test cores for these investigations, and
‘the authors acknowledge especially the cooperation of the Harrison Radiator
Division of General Motors, Lockport, New York; the Modine Manufacturing
Company, Racine, Wisconsin; The Trane Company, LaCrosse, Wisconsin; The
AiResearch Manufacturing Company, Los Angeles, California; and The Ferrotherm
Company, Cleveland, Ohio.
Most of the test cores were of low-temperature construction employing soldering
or brazing techniques. However, the primary objective of this program was to
investigate the effects of geometry on convective heat transfer and flow-friction
performance, with the hope that the geometrical advantages would provide incentive
for the development of high-temperature fabrication techniques and of new superior
surfaces. Since the first publications of the results of the program, both kinds of
developments have indeed occurred.
The American Society of Mechanical Engineers published the first results of
COMPACT HEAT EXCHANGERS
the program in 1951 in a monograph entitled Gas Turbine Plant Heat Exchangers—
Copyright © 1955, 1964, by McGraw-Hill, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Basic Heat Transfer and Flow Friction Design Data, by W. M. Kays, A. L. London,
Printed in the United States of America. This book, or and D. W. Johnson. In 1955, Compact Heat Exchangers, by W. M. Kays and A. L.
parts thereof, may not be reproduced in any form without London, was published; it contained a considerable additional body of basic data
permission of the publishers. from the test program, as well as data from other investigators. Following the
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 64-19505 publication of Compact Heat Exchangers, the test program was continued, and
new test cores were obtained, some of which were developed directly as a result of
33391
23456789 HL 9876 v
vi Preface

the earlier work. This second edition of Compact Heat Exchangers contains all the
new basic data that have been obtained, as well as extensive revisions and additions
to the chapters on analytic solutions for flow in tubes, an extension of the chapter
on heat-exchanger design theory, and a new chapter on the transient behavior of Nomenclature
heat exchangers; various other sections have been brought up to date in the light
of more recent research. The basic data section has been expanded to include the Most of the nomenclature is defined as it is introduced or else is obvious from the
characteristics of 25 new surfaces, and this section, reporting the characteristics of context of its use. However, it is summarized here for convenience.
more than 90 surfaces, remains the real core of the book. Any consistent dimensioning system may be used. All the heat transfer and
Although too numerous to name specifically, the authors take this opportunity flow-friction parameters are presented in nondimensional form so that a shift to a
to acknowledge the assistance over the past 15 years of the approximately 60 preferred system of dimensions presents no complications. However, the dimensions
Stanford University mechanical engineering students who participated in various of actual test surfaces, and also the illustrative examples, are given in the English
phases of the test program. Without their assistance this book could never have system.
been written.
English Letter Symbols
A Exchanger total heat transfer area on one side
W. M. KAY5 A~ Exchanger minimum free-flow area
A1 Exchanger total fin area on one side
A. L. LONDON A1r Exchanger total frontal area
A~ Cross-sectional area for longitudinal conduction
a Plate thickness
a. Short side of a rectangular flow passage
b Plate spacing
b Long side of a rectangular flow passage
C Flow-stream capacity rate (Wc~)
Cc Flow-stream capacity rate of cold-side fluid
Ch Flow-stream capacity rate of hot-side fluid
CL Coupling-liquid capacity rate
Cmin Minimum of Cc or
Cmax Maximum of Cc or Ch
Cr Rotor capacity rate of a rotating periodic flow exchanger (rotor mass times
specific heat times rph)
C~ Rotor capacity-rate ratio (Cr/Cmjn), dimensionless
(Cr*Or/Oa, mm), dimensionless
o Fluid heat capacity within exchanger (C05)
CO~ for minimum-capacity-rate fluid
Wall total heat capacity (exchanger core mass times specific heat of core
material)
Cw/Cmmn, dimensionless
c Specific heat
Specific heat at constant pressure
Specific heat at constant volume
D Inside diameter of a circular tube
Dh Hydraulic diameter of any internal passage (Dh = 4rh = 4AcL/A)
d Outside diameter of a tube in a tube bundle, crossed-rod matrix, or a pin in
pin-fin surface
E Friction power expended per unit of surface heat transfer area [see Eq. (1-2)]
F0 Correction factor to log-mean rate equation, dimensionLess
f Mean friction factor, defined on the basis of mean surface shear stress
[Eq. (1-6)]

vii

I
viii Nomenclature Nomenclature ix

Fuel-air ratio xl Longitudinal-tube pitch ratio in a circular tube bank (Fig. 7-5), dimensionless
Local friction factor, defined on the basis of local surface shear stress Xi Transverse-tube pitch ratio in a circular tube bank (Fig. 7-5), dimensionless
fapp Apparent mean friction factor [Eq. (6-6)] Y Parameter in Fig. 3-6
C Exchanger flow-stream mass velocity (W/A ~) z Parameter in the log-mean rate equation approach to heat-exchanger design
Proportionality factor in Newton’s second law z Influence coefficient for annulus heat transfer [Eqs. (6-1) and (6-2)]
H/C Hydrogen-carbon ratio for hydrocarbon fuels
h Unit conductance for thermal-convection heat transfer
Greek Letter Symbols
K0 Contraction loss coefficient for flow at heat-exchanger entrance [Eq. (5-1)],
a Ratio of total transfer area on one side of the exchanger to total volume of
dimensionless the exchanger
K~ Momentum flux correction factor, [Eq. (6-7)], dimensionless For matrix surfaces a = A/A1rL for either one side or both sides
K0 Expansion loss coefficient for flow at heat exchanger exit [Eq. (5-2)], dimen Aspect ratio of a rectangular flow passage (b/a), dimensionless
sionless Ratio of total heat transfer area on one side of a plate-fin heat exchanger to
k Unit thermal conductivity the volume between the plates on that side
L Total heat-exchanger flow length; also flow length of uninterrupted fin Denotes difference
Fin length from root to center S Fin thickness
M Molecular weight S Denotes difference
m A fin effectiveness parameter -~/~h7k~, ~~/~7kd e Exchanger effectiveness, dimensionless [Eq. (2-6)]
m Exponent in Eq. (4-2) Effectiveness of one pass of a multipass heat exchanger, dimensionless
ma Slope of operating line (Cc/C5), dimensionless
Outlet-fluid temperature response to a step change in one of the fluid inlet
a Number of passes in a multipass heat exchanger
temperatures, dimensionless
a Exponent in Eq. (4-1)
p Pressure
4 Wall temperature response at the fluid outlet section to a step change in fluid
inlet temperature, dimensionless
p Porosity of a matrix surface, diinensionless
F Parameter defined by either Eq. (2-15) or Eq. (2-19), dimensionless
q Heat transfer rate
• F Parameter defined by Eq. (2-16), dimensionless
Heat flux, heat transfer rate per unit of surface area
A Longitudinal conduction parameter defined by Eq. (2-25), dimensionless
R Universal gas constant
Fin temperature effectiveness, dimensionless [Eq. (2-4)]
R Heat transfer resistance
Resistance on the cold-fluid side of a heat exchanger Total surface temperature effectiveness, dimensionless [Eq. (2-3)]
(F Indicates “function of”
R5 Resistance on the hot-fluid side of a heat exchanger
a Ratio of free-flow area to frontal area, A0/Afr, dimensionless
Heat transfer resistance ratio, (R on Cmjn side)/(R on Cmax side)
Viscosity coefficient
r A radial coordinate
TA Hydraulic radius (A0L/A) p Density
Absolute humidity
Tm Inner radius of an annuli or inner radius of a circular fin
Unit surface shear stress
Ta Outer radius of an annuli or outer radius of a circular fin
r* r~/r0
o Time
T Absolute temperature
o Angular position coordinate in a circular tube (see Fig. 6-1)
Temperature to any arbitrary scale Dwell time, exchanger residence time for a fluid (L/ V)
to Cold-fluid-side temperature — °d, mm Oa for the Crnmn fluid
th Hot-fluid-side temperature max O~ for the Cmax fluid
U Unit overall thermal conductance Rotor rotation period for a periodic-flow heat exchanger
V 6* Generalized time parameter for a direct-transfer exchanger (O/Oa, mm), dimen
Velocity
V Volume sionless
1) Specific volume Dwell time ratio (Oa, mmn/°cs, max), dimensionless
w Mass flow rate Generalized time parameter for a periodic-flow exchanger (0/0,-)
x Parameter in the log-mean rate equation approach to heat-e~cchanger design
x Parameter in Fig. 3-6 Dimensionless Groupings
xc Specific-heat correction factor for humidity and products of combustion Reynolds number (4r5G/p~), a flow modulus
Density correction factor for humidity and products of combustion Reynolds number (dG/1m)
x Axial flow coordinate ~ Stanton number (h/Cc9), a heat transfer modulus
x* Axial flow coordinate (x/L), dimensionless Nusselt number (h4rh/k), a heat transfer modulus
x Nomenclature

Npr Prandtl number (pc~/k), a fluid properties modulus


Nt,, Number of heat transfer units of an exchanger, a heat transfer parameter
(A U/Cmin); more formally defined by Eq. (2-7)
Cmin/Cmax Flow-stream capacity-rate ratio [( Wcp)mjn/( Wcp)maxj
Contents
Subscripts
a Air side Frefrice v
av Average Nomenclature x01
c Cold-fluid side of heat exchanger
Chapter 1 Introduction
h Hot-fluid side of heat exchanger
Chapter 2 Exchanger Heat Transfer and Flow-friction Design Theory 10
Refers to inner surface of an annular passage or inner radius of a circular fin
L Coupling liquid in a liquid-coupled heat exchanger Chapter 3 The Transient Response of Heat Exchangers 64
m Mean conditions, defined as used Chapter 4 The Effects of Temperature-dependent Fluid Properties 86
o Refers to conditions at surface, or specifically to inner surface of an annular Chapter 5 Abrupt Contraction and Expansion Pressure-loss Coefficients 92
passage or inner radius of a circular fin Chapter 6 Analytic Solutions for Flow in Tubes 98
p Refers to one pass of a multipass heat exchanger
Chapter 7 Experimental Correlations for Simple Geometries 120
r Matrix rotor
w Wall; water side Chapter 8 Experimental Methods 133
x Local conditions Chapter 9 Heat Transfer Surface Geometry 137
co Conditions far downstream Chapter 10 Heat Transfer and Flow-friction Design Data 160
ii Conditions at inner surface of an annular passage when the inner surface alone Appendix A Material Properties 231
is heated Appendix B Examples of Heat-exchanger Performance Calculations 243
oo Conditions at outer surface of an annular passage when the outer surface alone
Appendix C Derivation of Effectiveness—Ma Relations 264
is heated
1,2 Indicate different sides of the heat exchanger; inlet and outlet conditions Index 271
max Maximum
mm Minimum
Ima Log mean average

Where English units are specifically employed, the following symbols and system
of units are used:
Mass Ibm, pounds mass
Force lb1, pounds force
Length ft, in., feet, inches
Time sec, hr, seconds, hours
Thermal energy Btu, British Thermal Unit

Under this system, the proportionality factor in Newton’s second law becomes
gc = 32.2 (Ibm ft)/(1b1 sec2), and the universal gas constant becomes R = 1545 ft-lb~/
(lbm mole °R). Further note the dimensions consistently employed for the following
properties, coefficients, and variables:

Density p, lbm/ft3
Viscosity JL, lbm/(hr ft)
Thermal conductivity k, Btu/(hr ft2 °F/ft)
Specific heat c5, Btu/(lbm °F)
Unit convection conductance h, Btu/(hr ft2 °F)
Heat flux q”, Btu/(hr ft2)
Mass flow rate W, lbm/hr
Molecular weight M, lbm/(lbm mole)

.1
xi
1
Introduction

The design of a heat exchanger involves a consideration of both the heat transfer
rates between the fluids and the mechanical pumping power expended to overcome
fluid friction and move the fluids through the heat exchanger. For a heat exchanger
operating with high-density fluids the friction-power expenditure is generally small
relative to the heat transfer rate, with the result that the friction-power expenditure
is seldom of controlling influence. However, for low-density fluids, such as gases, it
is very easy to expend as much mechanical energy in overcoming friction power as
is transferred as heat. And it should be remembered that in most thermal power sys
tems mechanical energy is worth four to ten times as much as its equivalent in heat.
It can be readily shown that for most flow passages that might be used for the
heat transfer surfaces of an exchanger, the heat transfer rate per unit of surface area
can be increased by increasing fluid-flow velocity, and this rate varies as something
less than the first power of the velocity. The friction-power expenditure is also
increased with flow velocity, but in this case the power varies by as much as the cube
of the velocity and never less than the square. It is this behavior that allows the de
signer to match both heat transfer rate and friction (pressure-drop) specifications, and
it is this behavior that dictates many of the characteristics of different classes of heat
exchangers.
If the friction-power expenditure in a particular application tends to be high,
the designer can reduce flow velocities by increasing the number of flow passages
in the heat exchanger. This will also decrease the heat transfer rate per unit of
surface area, but according to the above relations the reduction in heat transfer
rate will be considerably less than the friction-power reduction. The loss of heat
transfer rate is then made up by increasing the surface area (lengthening the tubes),
which in turn also increases the friction-power expenditure, but only in the same
proportion as the heat transfer surface area is increased.
In gas-flow heat exchangers the friction-power limitations generally force the
designer to arrange for moderately low mass velocities, and low mass velocities,
2 Compact Heat Exchangers Introduction 3

together with the low thermal conductivities of gases (low relative to most liquids), illustrates one such compact matrix, which could be built up of stacks of solid rods
result in low heat transfer rates per unit of surface area. Thus large amounts of or stacks of wire screens.
surface area become a typical characteristic of gas-flow heat exchangers. Gas-to-gas An interesting and important feature of the compact heat transfer surfaces
heat exchangers may require up to ten times the surface area of condensers or evap illustrated in Fig. 1-1 can be demonstrated if the heat transfer rate per unit of sur
orators or liquid-to-liquid heat exchangers in which the total heat transfer rates face area is plotted as a function of the mechanical power expended to overcome
and pumping-power requirements are comparable. For example, a regenerator for
a gas-turbine plant, if it is to be effective, requires several times as much heat trans Fig. 1—1. Some typicol exomples of compoct heot exchonger surfoces.
fer surface as the combined boiler and condenser in a steam power plant of com
parable power capacity.
These considerations have led to the development of many ways to construct
heat transfer surfaces for gas-flow applications in which the surface area density is
large. Such surfaces will be referred to here as compact heat transfer sui:faces. Several
typical compact heat transfer surface arrangements are illustrated in Fig. 1-i.
Perhaps the simplest and most common surface arrangement for a two-fluid
heat exchanger is the circular tube bundle shown in Fig. 1-1 a. This arrangement,
of course, has long been used for both high- and low-density fluids, but the only
way in which surface area density can be materially increased is to decrease the Ca) (b)
diameter of the tubes. Fabrication difficulties and cost place a rather severe limita
tion on what can be accomplished in this direction, and large heat exchangers with
tube diameters of less than ~- in. are rare.
An effective way to increase surface area density is to make use of secondary
surfaces, or fins, on one or both fluid sides of the surface. Figure 1-lb illustrates a
finned-circular-tube surface in which circular fins have been attached to the out
side of circular tubes. Such an arrangement is frequently used in gas-to-liquid heat
exchangers where optimum design demands a maximum of surface area on the
gas side. Fins could be used in a liquid-to-liquid heat exchanger, or on the liquid
Cc) Cd)
side of a gas-to-liquid heat exchanger, but here another difficulty arises. The low
friction-power requirement characteristic of high-density fluids, together with the
relatively high thermal conductivity of liquids, results in high convection heat trans~
fer rates in any optimum design (high convection conductances). If fins are
employed, the high heat transfer rates must be conducted along the fins, and the
conduction resistance may destroy all or most of the advantage of the extra surface
area gained (see the discussion of fin effectiveness in Chap. 2).
Another popular variation of the finned-tube arrangement is shown in Fig.
1-ic. Here the tubes are illustrated as flat, but they can also be circular.
In compact gas-to-gas heat exchangers, large area density is desirable on both
fluid sides, and a method for accomplishing this objective with fins is illustrated by
the plate-fin arrangement of Figs. 1-1 d and e. The heat exchanger is built up as a
Ce) CD
sandwich of flat plates bonded to interconnecting fins. The two fluids are carried
between alternate pairs of plates and can be arranged in either counterfiow or cross-
fluid friction per unit of surface area. Such a plot for three different surfaces is
flow, which provides an added degree of flexibility in this arrangement.
Figure 1-1 e also illustrates another variation; the fins can be interrupted, rather shown in Fig. 1-2. The heat transfer rate for a unit of area and for one degree of
than continuous, an arrangement which alters the basic convection heat transfer temperature difference is merely the unit convection conductance h evaluated for
and flow friction characteristics in a manner that will be discussed presently. some particular set of fluid properties from
In the periodic-flow-type heat exchanger energy is transferred by convection
h = N2~3 ~ (NstNpr2”3)Nx (1-1)
and stored in a matrix, from which it is later given up to the other fluid, Figure i-if
4 Compact Heat Exchangers Introduction 5

The friction power expended per unit of surface area can be readily evaluated as a based on the surface configuration designated 4-20.06(D), the upper curve. How
function of the Reynolds number, the friction factor, and the specified fluid properties ever, this design will probably have a significantly larger frontal area, even though
from volume is smallest, and this may or may not be desirable.
1 ~ A surface which has a basic characteristic of high heat flux relative to friction-
2g~ p2 (~) JiVE3
(1-2) power expenditure will be termed a h(gh-performance surface. There remains the ques
tion of why some heat transfer surfaces have this characteristic.
Thus a plot of h versus E can be prepared once the basic convection heat transfer It should first be noted that compactness itself leads to high performance. A
and friction characteristics are known as ftsnctions of the Reynolds number. Any compact surface has small flow passages, and the convection conductance h always
particular surface arrangement is then represented by a single curve on a plot such varies as a negative power of the hydraulic diameter of the passage. Thus compact
as that in Fig. 1-2 (for fluid properties of air at 1 atm and 500°F). surfaces tend, by their very nature, to have high conductances; this leads to high-
The interesting feature of this plot is the very wide difference in friction-power performance curves on the heat transfer—friction power plot, despite the influence of
expenditure for a given heat flux for different surfaces, or conversely, the smaller small hydraulic diameter on the friction power, as might be noted in Eq. (1-2).
In addition to the influence of small hydraulic diameter, however, high-per
formance characteristics can be obtained by any modification of the surface geome
Fig. 1—2. A comparison of the heat transfer and friction power characteristics of try that results in higher convection conductance at a given flow velocity. One of
three compact surfaces on a unit of surface area basis. Dimensions are
the most widely used ways of increasing conductance is to interrupt the wall surfaces
in Btu/(hr ft2 F) for h,,d and in hp/ft2 for E,td. Geometrical descriptions
of the surfaces are provided in Chap. 9.
so that the boundary layers can never become thick. Figure 1-1 illustrates such an
J~. interrupted surface. Finned surfaces lend themselves especially conveniently to such
treatment. Surface interruption also increases friction factors, but a small increase
in conductance can more than offsçt a large friction-factor increase, because flow
velocity can then be decreased and friction power varies with as much as the cube
of the velocity.
Othe? methods of obtaining high performance by change of flow-tube geometry
include the use of curved or wavy passages in which boundary-layer separation is
induced. A tube bank in which a fluid flows normal to the tubes is a high-perform
ance surface, since a new boundary layer builds on each tube, and the result is much
‘higher convection conductances than’ can be obtained by flow of the same velocity
through the inside of the tubes. Various types of inserts (turbulence promoters) are fre
quently used inside a tube to increase the conductance, but this scheme is not nearly
so effective as directly interrupting the boundary-layer sublayers on the heat transfer
surface.
It is clear that compact, high-performance heat transfer surfaces can be manu
factured in a very large variety of geometrical configurations and that, for many
difference in heat flux for a given friction-power expenditure. At the beginning of applications, the most desirable surfaces are those of very complex geometry. Only
this chapter the important influence of friction-power expenditure on heat-ex for the geometrically simple surface does a completely analytic treatment to establish
changer design was discussed, and in gas-flow heat exchangers, it is the necessity to the basic characteristics appear feasible; for all others, the basic characteristics can
minimize friction power that forces the use of large amounts of surface area. This in be reliably established only by experiments and by making use of model laws to
turn has resulted in the development of more compact heat transfer surfaces, but it extend the range of applicability of the results.
is apparent from Fig. 1-2 that another way to minimize friction power is to select The primary objectives of this book are to present the results of a very large
surfaces that plot “high” on a heat transfer—friction power plot, such as Fig. 1-2. number of such experiments, employing a single consistent method of presentation.
It should be emphasized that selection of a surface configuration for a particular Chapter 10 contains these experimental data in tables and in 92 graphs, covering a
application is by no means as simple as this, for there are many additional considera sufficiently wide range of geometrical configurations such that it is possible to deduce
tions. Other things being equal, three heat exchangers designed for identical thermal at least approximately the characteristics of many others merely by interpolation.
and pressure-drop performance and using the three surfaces represented on Fig. 1-2 The complete set of geometries covered are assembled for quick reference and com
will have quite different volumes and weights, and the smallest and lightest will be parison in Figs. 9-1 to 9-17.

I
6 Compact Heat Exchangers Introduction- 7

Sources of Data The Prandtl number was not a test variable, but the * power of the Prandtl number
is included as an approximation over a moderate range of Prandtl numbers and
The great bulk of the experimental data presented here was obtained directly from
should be at least adequate for all gases. A large number of the surfaces considered
two research programs. The first took place at the U.S. Navy Engineering Experi
are of the interrupted-fin variety, with a laminar boundary layer on at least a major
ment StatIon and was supported by the U.S. Navy Bureau of Ships. A description of
part of the surface. The analytic solutions for laminar-boundary-layer heat transfer
the experimental apparatus and the method of data reduction is given in Lon
indicate that the Prandtl number enters as about the * power for the Prandtl number
don and Ferguson [1]. The second program was at Stanford University under the
range 0.5 to 15. For turbulent flow in tubes, the available analytic solutions suggest
joint sponsorship of the Office of Naval Research, the Bureau of Ships, the Bureau
that in the gas range the Prandtl number enters as nearer the j power, but the * power
of Aeronautics, and the Atomic Energy Commission. The experimental apparatus
has been retained here for consistency and will lead to little error in the gas range of
is described by Kays and London [2]. Actually, the experimental systems were quite
Prandtl numbers (0.5 to 1.0). For laminar flow in long tubes, the Prandtl-number
similar, and cross checks using the same test cores indicated that they yielded very
effect is closer to a 1.0 power, but for finite tubes of the length typically employed in
consistent results.
heat exchangers, the * power is again near correct. The * power is thus a reasonable
The complete test data are available in a series of project reports. Only the sum
compromise and does allow presentation of the complete characteristics of a surface
marized data are presented here.
on a single graph where the Reynolds number range covers both laminar and turbu
A certain amount of data from other investigators is also included and is refer
lent flow.
enced as it appears. In general, the authors have preferred to include only data
There are a few exceptions to the above method of presentation. The Nusselt
obtained by using approximately the same procedures as the projects mentioned
number NNU is employed as a heat transfer parameter in place of the Stanton number
above, so that a truly consistent treatment is possible. In some cases, the authors
N5~ in the analytic solutions given in Chap. 6. In the summaries of analysis and ex
have reevaluated the data of others, again for consistency of treatment.
periment in Chap. 7, the length/diameter ratio of a tube, L/D or L/4rh, is employed
A considerable number of analytic convection solutions pertinent to compact
as an additional parameter in certain cases. Also, a temperature ratio, Tw/Tm, is em
heat exchangers have been included, and the sources of these are referenced as they
ployed in some cases in the summaries of Chap. 7. The reasons for using a tempera
appear.
ture ratio are fully discussed in Chap. 4, where the effects of temperature-dependent
All the experimental data presented have been obtained from experiments
fluid properties are considered.
using air (Np,. = 0.7) as a working fluid, since the major interest in compact heat
The mass velocity G in the Stanton and Reynolds numbers is, in all cases except
exchangers is for gas-flow applications. The applicability of the data to fluids out
matrix surfaces, evaluated on the basis of the minimum free-flow area A,., regardless
side the gas Prandtl-number range may be open to some question and depends
of where this minimum occurs in the passage. Thus 0 = W/A,.. In the case of ma
upon the particular geometry and what is known of the influence of the Prandtl
ftrices, G = W/~Afr, where the porosity p and the frontal area At,. combine to yield an
number. The analytic solutions are more general in this regard and, for some cases,
“effective” free-flow area ~Afr corresponding to A,..
cover the complete Prandtl-number spectrum ranging from the liquid metals through
The Reynolds number is based on a hydraulic diameter defined as
gases, water, and viscous liquids.
Dh 4r5 A,.
oh: —
(1-5)

Method of Presentation of Basic Test Data


where L is the flow length of the heat exchanger, A,. is the flow,cross-section area, and
One of the present objectives is to use a common treatment of basic heat transfer and A is the total heat transfer area. For flow normal to tube banks~L is an equivalent flow
flow-friction design data for all the surfaces considered, so as to avoid the confusion length measured from the leading edge of the first tube row to the leading edge of a S
often encountered with a large number of arbitrarily defined parameters. It is quite tube row that would follow the last tube row, were another tube row present. -~
feasible to use the same definition of parameters like friction factor or hydraulic For any cylindrical tube, Eq. (1-5) reduces to the conyentional definition of
diameter for such widely differing surface geometries as flow through tubes and flow hydraulic diameter, i.e., cross-section area divided by wettedperimeter. For a tube of circular
normal to banh of tubes; the resulting simplification for the heat exchanger designer cross section, 41), is simply tube diameter. The use of this parameter as the geometry
is quite apparent. For all the data presented the following format is employed. dimension in the Reynolds number in no way implies that the basic heat transfer
The basic heat transfer and flow-friction performance data for each surface are and flow-friction performance of different geometrical configurations can be corre
presented in both tabular and graphical form as lated thereby. In fact, the heat transfer performance for flow normal to banks of
N circular tubes with differing patterns can be better correlated by using the outside
NstNpr2”3 = ~1(NR) (1-3)
tube diameter in the Reynolds number if correlation is what is desired. However, the
1= *2(NR) (1-4) present objective is a simple and consistent treatment, and the above definition of
8 Compact Heat Exchangers
Introduction 9

hydraulic diameter can be applied to any kind of interior heat transfer surface with
circular-tube annulus are presented, including procedures for handling asymmetric
out ambiguity, providing that one does not attempt to apply the test data from one
heating from the two surfaces of an annulus. Rectangular and triangular tubes are
surface to a geometrically dissimilar surface. Furthermore, in heat-exchanger design
also treated, although somewhat less completely. The analytic solutions presented
work, A/Ar = L/rh is a directly useful parameter in its own right.
in Chap. 6 are not restricted to the Prandtl-number range of gases, as are the experi
Friction factor is defined on the basis of an equivalent shear force in the flow
mental data which form the main body of this book, and thus may be used for liquids,
direction per unit of heat transfer (or friction) area. Whether this equivalent shear
including liquid metals.
force is a true viscous shear, or is primarily a pressure force, as in the case of tube
For certain heat transfer surfaces of simple flow geometry, sufficient data have
banks, is of no consequence. For most of the surfaces considered it is a combination
been obtained, both experimental and analytic, so that a generalized treatment can
of viscous shear (skin friction) and pressure force (form drag), but there is no object
be presented. Summaries of data for gas flow through circular tubes and rectangular
in design work in attempting to separate these effects. With such a definition of the
tubes of various aspect ratio, flow normal to banks of staggered circular tubes, and
friction factor a common treatment of all types of surfaces is possible. Thus
flow through stacked-screen matrices are presented in Chap. 7. Where applicable,
fG2 PT0
____ these data are recommended for design purposes rather than the experimental data of
TO — — or G2/2g~
_______ (1-6)
Chap. 10, except for those cases where the design surface is identical to a particular

p 2g~
surface considered in Chap. 10.
For flow through cylindrical tubes,f in Eq. (1-6) is the same as the conventional
In Chap. 8 a brief description is given of the test apparatus and methods used
Fanning friction factor and is also identical to the conventional drag coefficient for
to obtain the data in Chap. 10.
flow along flat surfaces. To determine pressure drop in a heat exchanger core, there
Chapter 9 contains a summary of all the pertinent geometrical data for the test
are other effects besides flow friction, and a complete force-momentum equation,
surfaces of Chap. 10. These data are presented in tables; diagrams of all the test sur
including the friction-factor term, is given in Chap. 2. It is again emphasized that this
faces are also shown.
definition of the friction factor, and the integrated form of the force-momentum equa
Chapter 10 comprises the main body of this book. Basic heat transfer and flow-
tion as given in Chap. 2, applies equally well to flow through tubes and flow normal
friction test data for a wide variety of compact high-performance surfaces are pre
to banks of tubes of any type.
sented in 92 graphs.
The fluid properties in all the experimentally determined basic heat transfer
Appendix A contains a compilation of fluid properties useful in application of
and flow-friction design data were evaluated at a bulk average fluid temperature.
compact heat transfer surfaces.
The effects of temperature-dependent fluid properties are discussed in Chap. 4.
Appendix B contains several illustrative heat exchanger analyses to demon
strate a proi~edure for using the design data.
Summary of Contents Appendix C presents in detail the derivation of some of the effectiveness—Nifi
relationships presented in Chap. 2.
Chapter 2 contains a summary of the design theory necessary to predict the heat
transfer and pressure-drop behavior of a heat exchanger. Included are the solutions,
in both tabular and graphical form, for a large number of heat exchanger flow References
arrangements, presented as effectiveness, e, versus number of heat transfer units, Nt0. 1. London, A. L., and C. K. Ferguson: Test Results nf High Performance Heat Exchanger Surfaces
Equations for the evaluation of heat-exchanger-core pressure drop are also presented. Used in Aircraft Intercoolers and Their Significance for Gas Turbine Regenerator Design, Trans.
The transient behavior of heat exchangers is considered in Chap. 3. Included ASME vol. 71, p. 17, 1949.
are graphs from which thermal lags can be evaluated for several common types of j2. Rays, W. M., and A. L. London: Heat Transfer and Flow Friction Characteristics of Some Com
pact Heat Exchanger Surfaces—Part I: Test System and Procedure, Trans. ASME vol. 72,
heat exchangers and also for ducting or piping.
pp. 1075—1085, 1950.
The effects of temperature-dependent fluid properties on heat transfer and flow
friction in gas-flow heat exchangers are discussed in Chap. 4. Included are recom
mendations for corrections to be made for these effects during design.
Chapter 5 contains graphs of heat-exchanger-core abrupt contraction and ex
pansion pressure-loss coefficients for various types of surface geometry. These are
used to evaluate pressure losses at the core entrance and exit arising from boundary-
layer separation.
A number of analytic solutions for heat transfer and flow friction in smooth
tubes are summarized in Chap. 6. These include a rather complete treatment of flow,
both laminar and turbulent, inside a circular tube. Extensive data on the concentric

I
Exchanger Heat Transfer and Flow-friction Design Theory 11

2 conventional automobile engine block and air-cooled radiator system is a common

Exchanger Heat Transfer and


Flow- friction Design Theory
1 example of a liquid-coupled indirect-transfer exchanger; in this case, heat is trans
ferred indirectly from the combustion products to a cooling air stream.
3. The periodic-flow ~ype, like the common Lj ungstrom air preheater, consists of a
matrix heat transfer surface which is rotated so that an element is periodically passed
from the hot to the cold flow streams and back again. As the hot fluid passes through
the matrix, the fluid is cooled and the matrix is heated; in the cold-side part of the
cycle the cold fluid is heated and the matrix cooled.
After the development of the heat transfer theory the prediction of flow pressure
drop is considered. The chapter is concluded with a presentation of some useful geo
metrical relationships involving surface and overall core dimensions.

A Comprehensive Design Procedure


The methodology of arriving at an optimum heat exchanger design is a complex one,
not only because of the arithmetic involved, but more particularly because of the
many qualitative judgments that must be introduced. To illustrate the design pro
The purpose of this chapter is to summarize exchanger heat transfer and flow-friction cedure in a schematic fashion, Fig. 2-1, modified from a presentation by Mason [1],
is given.
performance theory. The designer uses this theory in conjunction with the basic
The inputs to the des(gn-theoy procedure include, along with the problem statement
design data reported in Chaps. 6, 7, and 10 to size the heat-exchanger core for a
or specifications, the surface heat transfer and flow-friction design characteristics
specified heat transfer duty and pressure drop. This theory also provides the designer
with the equations to use in optimizing his design on the basis of whatever criteria he and physical properties information. These last two inputs are considered in Chaps. 4
to 10 and Appendix A. The problem statement may specify a consideration of dif
may select for this purpose.
ferent exchangers, as, for instance, periodic-flow and direct-transfer types. Several
Details of the derivation of the final equations are omitted here but are included
or many surface geometries may be used. Some options may be allowed in the physi
for some cases in Appendix C with a view to illustrate the general method of
cal properties: for example, the matrix material to be used in a periodic-flow-type
approach. Where available, literature references are provided for the cases not cov
exchanger.
ered in Appendix C. Major emphasis is placed on the basic principles and the con
The design-theory procedure is the subject of this chapter. It can be set up on a
ceptual ideas employed, together with the engineering significance of the final rela
tionships. These are presented in the form of graphs and tables useful for design and computer program. If it is, the output may be a large number of optional solutions. Some
also in algebraic form when feasible. of these optional solutions may represent an estimate of what a competitor may offer;
others may represent customers’ suggestions. These optional solutions, plus evalua
Appendix B contains illustrative applications of the information presented in
tion criteria, serve as the inputs to the evaluation procedure.
this chapter to the prediction of performance of gas-turbine-plant heat exchangers.
The evaluation procedure is in a large measure qualitative; brazing-furnace
Throughout this section frequent references are made to the gas-turbine-plant regen
size, shipping limitations, delivery dates, company policy, an estimate of the strength
erator and intercooler applications, as these are excellent examples of heat
of the competition are all examples of qualitative evaluation criteria. In contrast,
exchangers requiring a refined design. It needs to be emphasized, however, that the
trade-off factors may be developed to quantitatively weigh the relative costs of pres
techniques and procedures presented here are broadly applicable to the design of
sure drop, weight, heat transfer performance, and leakage (in the case of the periodic-
all classes of unfired heat exchangers.
flow exchangers). As a rather startling example of such trade-off factors, it has been
To summarize briefly, this chapter contains a consideration of the heat transfer
estimated that a saving of one pound is worth $1,000 in a commercial aircraft
theory of three types of exchanger systems, as follows:
application.
1. The conventional direct-transfer ~ype~ in which the two fluids exchanging ther
The final output is an optimum design or, possibly, several such designs to submit
mal energy are separated by the heat transfer surface.
to the customer. Alternatively, the final output may be used to formulate a new
2. The liquid-coupled indirect-transfer çype, which consists essentially of two direct-
problem input statement for a parametric study leading to an optimum overall sys
transfer units coupled with a pumped heat transfer medium. The transfer fluid circu
tem rather than just an optimum heat exchanger based on somewhat arbitrary initial
lates between the hot-fluid exchanger, where the thermal energy is picked up, and
specification of requirements.
the cold-fluid exchanger, where the thermal energy is used to heat the cold fluid. The

I
12 Compact Heat Exchangers Exchanger Heat Transfer and Flow-friction Design Theory 13

Fig. 2—]. Methodology of heot exchonger design.


Heat Transfer in Direct-type Exchangers
Exchanger Variables—Dimensional and Nondimensional
For the conventional two-fluid heat exchanger, the parameters relating to heat
transfer performance are as follows:
U = overall conductance for heat transfer Btu/(hr ° ft2 of A) +

A = surface area on which U is based, ft2


th, ifl) = hot-fluid terminal temperatures, °F
th, out
~ in) = cold-fluid terminal temperatures, °F
out
= (WcP)h
hot-fluid capacity rate, Btu/(hr °F)t
=
= (Wc~)c
cold-fluid capacity rate, Btu/(hr °F)t
=
Flow arrangement = counterfiow, parallel flow, crossflow, parallel counter-
flow, or combinations of these basic arrangements.
The interrelation of these parameters provides the basis for the heat transfer aspects
of exchanger design.
The significance of all the foregoing variables is self-evident, with the exception
of the overall conductance U. This term comes from an overall heat transfer rate equa
tion which combines the convective and conductive mechanisms, responsible for the
heat transfer from the hot to the cold fluid, into a single equation similar to Ohm’s
law for the steady-state flow of electrical current.

UQ~—tc) (2-1)

Here dq/dA is the heat flux per unit transfer area [Btu/(hr ft2)j at a section in the
exchanger where the temperature difference is (th — ta). From this relation, it is evi
dent that U is an overall thermal conductance based on a temperature potential
(th — t~) and a unit transfer area. The reciprocal of U is an overall thermal resistance
which can be considered as having the following series components:
1. A hot-side film-convection component, including the temperature ineffec
EVA LUAT ION tiveness of the extended surface or fin area on this side
PROCEDURE 2. A wall-conduction component
3. A cold-side film-convection component, including the temperature ineffec
tiveness of the extended area on this side
4. Fouling factors to allow for scaling in service on both the hot and cold sides

‘I.
The equation expressing this idea, but omitting the fouling factors for simplicity,
may be written:
1_ 1 a 1
Uh — ~o,hhh + (AW/Ah)k + (AC/Ah)~O~C (2-2)
Clearly, a comprehensive design procedure of any generality cannot be pre 1 1 a 1
or — ~ + (A~/A~)k + (Ah/AC)~Ohhh
sented in a monograph of this type. What is attempted here is to provide the quanti
tative inputs of surface characteristics and a sampling of typical physical properties
t For gas flow, c~, denoies the constant-pressure specific heat in distinction in c,,, the constant
information, together with a systematic development of the design theory. volume specific heat. For liquids (and solids), no such distinction is needed.

I
14 Compact Heat Exchangers Exchanger Heat Transfer and Flow-friction Design Theory 15

where U5 is based on a unit of hot-side total area (including fin or extended area) and mensional parameters which do allow such a representation. Tj~~dirn~niuil
U,, is based on a unit of cold-side total area. A,,, denotes the average wall area; ~ ~
and ij~,,, denote the temperature effectiveness of the total area A5 and A,,, respectively. physical significance will no named and defined.
It is evident from Eqs. (2-2) that U5A,, = U,,A,,. EXcHANGER HEAT TRANSFER EFFECTIVENESS
The convective film coefficients h,, and h,, are complex flinctions of the surface
geometry, fluid properties, and flow conditions. Except for some of the geometrically — q — C5(,t5, in ts;out) - C,,Q,,, out — ~c, in)
(2-6)
simple cases, the engineer generally relies on model experiments to establish these — qmax — CminQii in — ~c, in) — Cmin(ts, in — ~c, ~)
coefficients. In Chaps. 6, 7, and 10, these coefficients are presented in graphical form
where Cmiu is the smaller of the Cs and C,, magnitudes.
employing nondimensional parameters. In Chap. 4, consideration is given to the
NUMBER or EXCHANGER HEAT TRANSFER UNITS
effects of temperature-dependent fluid properties on the film coefficients.
If no extended surface is employed on either side, both ~ and ‘q,-,,,, are unity, 1 “A
(2-7)
A,,, (A5 + A,,)/2, and Eqs. (2-2) can be simplified accordingly. However, where Cmi,~ ~ UdA
extended surface is employed, temperature gradients along the fins extending into
the fluid reduce the temperature effectiveness of the surface, and ~, is less than unity where A is the same transfer area as used in the definition of U. In design work U can
as a consequence; tj,, is a weighted average of the 100 per cent effectiveness of the generally be treated as constant.
prime surface and the less than 100 per cent fin surface ij~. Thus CAPACITY-RATE RATIO

Cmin (2-8)
~1o 1_41(1 —~ (2-3) Cmax
— A
Gardiner [2] gives relations for ij~~ for a number of fin geometries. For many of where Ca and umax are, respectively, the smaller and the larger of the two magni
the heat transfer surfaces considered here, the relation for the straight fin with tudes C5 and C,,.
constant conduction cross section may be used to a good approximation. In general it is possible to express

~1r =
tanh ml
(2-4) = (Nt~~, 2~., flow arrangement) (2-9)
m Cma,~

where m = for thin sheet fins as revealed by the graphs of Figs. 2-12 to 2-27.
• These nondimensional parameters are not only useful in allowing a compact
(2-5) graphical presentation of exchanger performance, but also possess a readily grasped
m = for circular pin fins physical significance. The effectiveness e compares the actual heat transfer rate,
q = C5(t5, in — ts, out) = C,,(t,,, out — t,,, in), to the thermodynamically>’ limited, maxi
When the fin extends from wall to wall, the effective fin length 1 is half the wall spac mum possible heat transfer rate as would be realized only in a d~ounterflow heat
ing. This relation is shown graphically in Fig. 2-11. Also shown is ~ for an annular exchanger of infinite heat transfer area, namely, q,,,~ = C,,(t5, in — ~c, in) if C,, < C5,
circular fin of the type quite commonly employed on the outside of circular tubes. or Cs(ts,in — t,,, in) if C5 < C,,. Thus e possesses the significance of effectiveness of the
The circular-fin solution is plotted as a family of curves going in the limiting case to heat exchanger from a thermodynamic point of view.
the behavior of a straight fin [Eq. (2-4)]. It is to be noted that, given the operating conditions th, in, t,,,~, C5, and C,,, the
In the usual gas-to-gas or gas-to-liquid heat exchanger, the wall-resistance com magnitude of e completely defines the heat transfer performance. If C5 = Cmin, then
ponent in Eqs. (2-2) may be neglected relative to the fluid-side resistances. In a gas- e = (ts, in — ~5, out)/(ts, in — t,,, in), which is a “temperature effectiveness” for cooling
to-liquid exchanger, such as a water-cooled intercooler, the air-side-resistance com the hot fluid. But, if C,, = Cmjn, then e = (t,,, out — ~c, in)/(ts, in — t,,, in), which is the
ponent is usually much greater than that on the water side and is said to control the “temperature effectiveness” for heating the cold fluid. However, the general defini
heat transfer. For a gas-to-gas exchanger, the two resistances may be of comparable tion of effectiveness, Eq. (2-6), is not a “temperature effectiveness,” but rather a “heat
magnitude. transfer effectiveness,” and ambiguity will be avoided if this definition is strictly
The heat transfer rate equation (2-1) must be combined with an energy equation, adhered to.
equating the loss of enthalpy of the hot fluid to the gain of enthalpy of the cold fluid, The number of heat transfer units Ni,, is a nondimensional expression of the
in order to relate the heat-exchanger variables listed at the beginning of this discus “heat transfer size” of the exchanger. Examination of Fig. 2-12, as an example, dem
sion. These variables are too numerous to permit ready graphical description of their onstrates the asymptotic character of the e versus Ntu relation for a given capacity-
relation. However, they may be judiciously grouped into a smaller number of nondi rate ratio. ‘When the Nt~ is small the exchanger effectiveness is low, and when the

I .
16 Compact Heat Exchangers Exchanger Heat Transfer and Flow-friction Design Theory 1/

Ntu is large the effectiveness c approaches asymptotically the limit imposed by flow As previously noted, the maximum possible heat transfer rate is limited by flow rates
arrangement and thermodynamic considerations. The manner in which the transfer
and inlet fluid temperatures to
area and overall conductance enter into the N~, expression (2-7) emphasizes the
costs of attaining a large N~, (and hence high effectiveness) in terms of capitalization, qm~ = Cmin(tis, in — t~, in) = CftA0 (2-13)
space, and weight for transfer area A, or in terms of an increased flow-friction power Normalizing Eqs. (2-la), (2-11), and (2-12) with qm~ yields
requirement to obtain lower film resistances for higher U.
From Eqs. (2-2) for the case of negligible wall resistance, an interesting and - UAL
E — (2-lb)
useful relationship between Ntu and the Stanton numbers for each of the fluid streams ~ ~-5o

can be derived: — tis, in — tft, out


e A0 (2-1 la)
• 1 + 1 (2-10)
\tu 170, h(L/rh) h( Ch/Cmin)Nst, ft ~7o, c(L/rh)c(Cc/Cmin)Nst, c
e = — tc,in -~ (2-12a)
where C,,,j~ ~ the smaller of the two capacity rates C~, and C~. A0 C5
The third nondimensional parameter, the capacity-rate ratio Cmin/Cmax, is
The mean temperature difference Atm is some sort of a mean value between the
terminal magnitudes ~h, in — tc, out and ~15, out — tc, in• Moreover, the flow arrange
Fig. 2—2. Fluid temperature conditions ment should be expected to influence the averaging procedure. Now from Eqs.
in a counterflow heat exchanger. (2-ha) and (2-12a),

in — ~c, out = (th, in — tft, out) — (t0, out te, in) + (th, out — tc, in)

= eA~ — eA0 + (1 — e)A0 = (i —

Similarly,

tls, out — tc,in = (1 —

Thus it is apparent that

Atm~( C5

I ~, ‘~
AREA and, combining with Eq. (2-lb),

simply the ratio of mass flow rate times specific-heat capacity for the two streams. = S(Ntu, ~

These products can be considered as flow-stream thermal-capacity rates, i.e., energy-


storage rate in the stream per unit of temperature change. Removing the restrictions specified in Fig. 2-2 of C5 < C~ and a counterfiow arrange
The relationship implied in Eq. (2-9) is a key one in the presentation of ex ment suggests the validity of Eq. (2-9).
changer heat transfer performance. The argument leading to it follows. Consider
the presentation in Fig. 2-2 of the fluid temperature condition in a counterflow heat
Effectiveness-Nffi Relations
exchanger, with Cft < C~ (Ch = Cmffi, Cc = Cmax). The heat transfer rate equation The effectiveness-Ntu relations described by Figs. 2-12 to 2-27 will now be
(2-1) may be written in integrated form considered.

q = UA Atm (2-la) Counterfiow (Fig. 2-12). See Appendix C for the derivation. The algebraic rela
tion is
where Atm is a suitably averaged mean temperature difference “(th—Q. Two addi
1 — g—Nt1—cm/cm~
tional expressions may be written for q, based on energy-balance considerations: = (2-13)
1 — (Cnjn/Cmax)e_Nt_1~m~
q = Ch(th,irs — tft,out) (2-11)
where ~ = A U/Cmjn is always based on the minimum capacity rate. Calculated
q = Cc(tc,out — tc,in) (2-12) results for the preparation of Fig. 2-12 are listed in Table 2-1. Note that for all

I
18 Compact Heat Exchangers Exchanger Heat Transfer and Flow-friction Design Theory 19

capacity-rate ratios the effectiveness approaches unity for large magnitudes of ~ The effectiveness is based on the mixed mean temperature of the outlet fluids. The
This is a direct consequence, of course, of the definition of e [see Eq. (2-6) and accom analytic solution for this arrangement cannot be expressed in closed form.
panying text]. Note further that the smaller the capacity-rate ratio, the higher the Table 2-3 and Fig. 2-14 are based on a series solution by Mason [3]. As for all
effectiveness for a given ATtn. Two limiting cases of Eq. (2-13) are of particular interest previous flow arrangements, for Cinjn/Cmax = 0,
for gas-turbine heat exchanger design, namely, Cmjn/Cm~ = 0 and unity. The first C = 1 —

case approximates the situation for a water-cooled intercooler, where Cwater ~ Cair,
and the second case is descriptive of a regenerator, where Cgas Cair. For these con
Note that all the curves of Fig. 2-14 approach e = unity asymptotically, as was the
ditions Eq. (2-13) reduces to case for counterfiow. However, for all Cmin/Cm~> 0 the effectiveness for a given
Ntu is less than for counterfiow, with the greatest difference occurring for
e = 1 — e~~tu (2-13a) Cmjn/Cmax = 1 (see Fig. 2-25).
Crossflow, One Fluid Mixed, The Other Unmixed (Fig. 2-15). See Appendix C for
mlii
for —=0
Um~ the derivation. This flow arrangement is described schematically in Fig. 2-15; one
fluid is considered to flow through separate tubes so that cross mixing is nil, while
and to
the other fluid is perfectly cross mixed. The effectiveness-Na, equations are as
= N~ (2-13b) follows:
1 + Nth
For Cm~ = Cunmixed, Cmin = Cmjxed:
mm
for = unity e = 1 — e~0maxJCmin
Umax (2-15)
where 1~’ = 1 —
Note that for an evaporator or condenser, Cmin/Cm~ = 0, because if one fluid
remains at constant temperature throughout the exchanger its specific heat, and thus For Cmax Cmmxeci, Cmin = Cunaea:
its capacity rate, is by definition equal to infinity.

j
Parallel flow (Fig. 2-13). The equation for this relation is C = ~3i~-(l — e_~”CmthR)max)

— 1 — eNtu(l+Crnin/~’mn)
where IS” = 1 — e~tu (2-16)
— 1 + Cmjn/Cmaj~ (2-14)
Here, as before, Na, = A U/Cmmn.
Computed results for the preparation of Fig. 2-13 are summarized in Table 2-2. Note Computed results from these equations are summarized in Table 2-4. For the
that unlike the counterfiow case, the asymptote for effectiveness is less than unity limiting case of Cmin/Cm~ = 0, both Eqs. (2-15) and (2-16) reduce to
except for Cma,/Cmn = 0. For Cmin/Cm~ = 1 the maximum possible effectiveness in
e = 1 — rNtu
parallel flow is only 50 per cent, or one-half that of counterfiow. For Cmin/Cm~ = 0,
Eq. (2-14) reduces to the same as for the counterfiow and parallel-flow cases, emphasizing again that flow
arrangement is unimportant where one capacity rate is very much greater than the
e = 1 — e~tu (2-14a)
other. Note also from Fig. 2-15 that, if the option is allowed, it is better to mix the
which is identical to Eq. (2-1 3a) for counterflow. It is thus evident that, as far as per fluid with the minimum capacity rate in preference to the fluid with the maximum
formance is concerned, a counterfiow intercooler (Cwater ~ Cajr), evaporator, or capacity rate.
condenser possesses no advantage over a parallel-flow unit. However, for Crossflow, Both Fluids Mixed (Fig. 2-16). This is an uncommon flow arrange
Cmin/Cmax = 1, Eq. (2-14) reduces to ment in which each fluid temperature is a function of only one spatial coordinate.
Such an arrangement can only be obtained by baffling both fluids. One reason this
1 — e2Ntu
C = 2 (2-14b) arrangement is of interest is that it is a case where it is possible to obtain a decrease
in effectiveness with increasing Na,.
and it is seen from Fig. 2-25, where both Eqs. (2-13b) and (2-14b) are plotted, that a The solution can be presented in closed algebraic form:
parallel-flow gas-turbine-plant regenerator (Cgas Cair) has substantially lower Ne,, 217
performance for Na, > 0.7 (e > 40 per cent). — ATtn + (Cma,/Cmax)Ntu —l
Crossflow, Both Fluids Unmixed (Fig. 2-14). In this type of crossflow heat ex
1 — e_Ntu 1 — e_Ntumt~/(Dmax)
changer each fluid stream is assumed to have been broken up into a large number
of separate flow tubes for passage through the heat exchanger with no cross mixing. Computed results from this equation are tabulated in Table 2-5.
20 Compact Heat Exchangers Exchanger Heat Transfer and Flow-friction Design Theory 21

Multipass Overall-counterfiow Arrangements, Fluids Mixed Between Passes. See is assumed that there is complete mixing between passes. In contrast, Fig. 2-18, from
Appendix C for the derivation. It is possible to obtain solutions for overall counter- the results presented by Stevens et al [4], is based on one fluid mixed between passes
flow multipass configurations in rather simple algebraic form if it is postulated that and the other fluid unmixed. Figure 2-19, based on the same reference, shows the
the fluids are “mixed” between passes and that the total Ne,, is equally distributed performance of an overall-counterfiow arrangement with crossfiow passes where
between passes of the same basic arrangement in an overall counterfiow there is no mixing either within passes or between passes. The difference between
configuration: these three sets of curves is not great, and thus the stipulation of mixing between
(1 ~ — 1
passes, as in Eq. (2-18), is not highly restricting.
)1—e~ /
(2-18) Figures 2-17, 2-18, and 2-19 demonstrate that a close approach to counterfiow
p mm max nun behavior can be realized by multipassing and that a large number of passes is often
\ i—~ / ~ not warranted.
where n is the number of identical passes in the overall counterfiow arrangement and Parallel Counterfiow, Shell Fluid Mixed (Fig. 2-20). This basic flow arrangement
e~ is the effectiveness of each pass, a function of Nt~/n and the basic flow configura is described schematically in Fig. 2-20. It is one of the most common arrangements
tion of the pass. Note that the individual passes can be any one of the basic flow for shell-and-tube construction. The algebraic relationship, from Wright [5] and
arrangements. Bowman, Mueller, and Nagel [6], is
2
C = (2-19)
Fig. 2—3. Operating—line and equilibrium—line representation [1 + (Cmin/Cmax)] + ‘V/i + (Cmin/Cmax)2 (1 + er)/(1 — e”)
for = 1, n=3,6p=0.30.
where, in this case,
th, n

F = Nt~\/1 + (2~~)2
(slope = unity) Cma,~

OVERALL OPERATING LINE As for all the previous flow arrangements, this equation will reduce to Eq. (2-1 3a)
(slope = Cc/C~)
for the case of Cmin/Cmax = 0. Calculated results for the preparation of Fig. 2-20 are
listed in Table 2-6. It is to be noted from this table and from Fig. 2-20 that for
Cmin/Cmax > 0 the effectiveness for an infinite area (Nt~ = oo) is always less than
th

= unity.
= Equation (2-19) was derived for one shell pass and two tube passes. However,
— 3~p=s four, six, eight, etc., tube passes yield results which are numerically so close to the
1~
two-tube-pass situation that nothing is to be gained by presenting these more com
tc plex expressions.
Multipass Overall-counterfiow Heat Exchangers with Parallel-counterfiow Passes.
Figures 2-21, 2-22, and 2-23 show the effect of multipassing the basic parallel-counter-
For the special case of Cmin/Cmax = unity, flow arrangement. These are some of the more popular arrangements where shell-
ne~ and-tube construction is employed. The results are based entirely on Eq. (2-18),
(2-1 8a) using the effectiveness of each pass, es,, as evaluated from Eq. (2-19).
= 1 + (n — 1)e~
Split-flow Heat Exchangers (Fig. 2-24). This rather uncommon flow arrangement
The method used in deriving Eq. (2-18) is illustrated in Appendix C. It may is described schematically in Fig. 2-24. The e-Nt~ characteristics were obtained from
be described as one of synthesis, in that the overall effectiveness of the complex system the work of Iqbal and Stachiewiez [7]. The solution is presented in closed form in
is related to the component effectiveness of each pass. An operating-line—equilibrium- this paper. However, it is too complex algebraically to be presented here. The tabu
line technique, similar to that frequently used in the analysis of mass transfer systems, lations in Tables 2-7a and 2-7b were obtained from the computer-program results
can be employed very effectively to show the algebraic relations in terms of simple of Iqbal and Stachiewiez.
geometrical relations. This is illustrated in Fig. 2-3 for Cmj~/Cm~ = 1, e~, = 0.30, and Like the crossflow both-fluids-mixed arrangement of Fig. 2-16, it is possible to
n = 3, e = 0.562 from Eq. (2-18a). obtain a decrease in effectiveness with an increasing Nt11. There is a small difference
Multipass Overall-counterfiow Heat Exchangers with “Unmixed” Crossflow in performance between the situations Cshell = Cmin and Ctube = Cmm. The differ
Passes. Figure 2-17 was prepared from Eq. (2-1 8a) assuming “unmixed” crossflow ence is negligible for ~ <5, but becomes more significant in the higher ~ range
passes, for which e~, is given in Fig. 2-14. Since Eq. (2-18a) was employed, it where an increase in ~ results in a lower effectiveness.
22 Compact Heat Exchangers Exchanger Heat Transfer and Flow-friction Design Theory 23

Effect of Flow Arrangement. As has been pointed out, all flow arrangements have parameters employed. The purpose of the following text is first to demonstrate the
the same e-Nt~ relationship for Cmin/Cmn = 0, and for all other magnitudes of one-to-one correspondence between the log-mean rate equation and the effective
Cmin/Cmax the effectiveness for counterfiow is the highest. The difference in perform ness-Ntu approach, and second, to present some arguments in favor of the latter
ance is maximum for the case of Cmin/Cmax = 1. To illustrate this difference, Figs. method.
2-25 and 2-26 were prepared. A study of these graphs will provide an idea of relative Suppose one considers two exchangers, a reference-true counterflow exchanger
area requirements for heat exchangers of different flow arrangements and, in con and the exchanger in question. Each is to operate with the same U, inlet fluid tem
junction with Fig. 2-17, leads to the conclusion that for effectiveness of the order of peratures, and flow rates, and the arça of the reference exchanger is to be propor
80 per cent, pure counterfiow or multipass counterflow arrangements must be em tioned so that it has the same q. It then follows that &Jog_mean will be the same for the
ployed for Cmin/Cm~ = 1 direct-transfer-type exchangers. two exchangers and
Effect of Cmin/Cmax < 1 for a Regenerator (Fig. 2-27). Most gas-turbine regen
erators operate in the region Cmin/Cm~ = 0.90 to 0.97 because of the influence of F0 A counterfiow —
= A <1
the combustion products on both the specific heat and gas flow rate. For design pur
poses, it is convenient to use the more simple e-N~~ relations for Cmjn/Cm~ = unity or
and make an approximate adjustment for the departure of this magnitude from F0 = Nt~(counterflow for the same e)
unity; Fig. 2-27 was prepared for this purpose. As cross-counterflow arrangements ~[1 Ntu(actual)

Examination of X and Z leads to the conclusions that


Fig. 2—4. Flow configurotion correction foctors for log— X = e for C~ = Cmth
mean rote equotion (not to scale).
or
Ch ‘~
X=e—J
( cc,
forCh=G~

th1~th2
and
— tc2—tcI

z=.2E- =either or 1
x=~2~1 Cmax Cmin/Cmax

It is clear, then, that a one-to-one correspondence exists between the two sets of
parameters.
The arguments in favor of the e-Nt~ approach follow:
1. The effectiveness is a simply defined, overall performance parameter having
thermodynamic significance like an efficiency factor; it should therefore stand alone as
a dependent variable and not appear directly in the abscissa and indirectly in the
(with unmixed passes) will fall between the extremes of counterflow on the one hand
ordinate.
and single-pass crossflow on the other, interpolation may be used.
2. The log-mean rate equation misleadingly simplifies the notion of what is in
volved in heat exchanger design theory, since the implication is that only a rate
Log-mean Rate Equation Compared to e-N~~ approach equation is required. In reality, of course, both the rate equation and energy-balance
The relation conventionally used in heat exchanger design is a log-mean rate principles are involved, but the latter is hidden in the F0 factor.
equation of the form 3. The e-Nt~ approach simplifies the algebra involved in predicting the perform
ance of complex flow arrangements.
q = UAF0 Atiog_mean
4. The more cogent arguments are related to ease of use in design work. To
where q is the overall heat transfer rate, in Btu per hour, for the exchanger, and illustrate, consider the following two typical problems:
1~
Atiog_mean is the log-mean temperature difference of the two fluids calculated as for a. Given U, C~, C5, and the terminal temperatures, to determine the necessary A
the case of true counterflow. If the exchanger is actually a counterflow unit the non- ‘I b. Given A, U, C~, C5, and t5, u~ and t~, ~ to determine outlet temperatures
dimensional factor F0 is unity. For all other flow arrangements F0 is less than unity. For the first problem, both approaches give a straightforward solution. How
This factor has been calculated for a variety of flow configurations and is presented ever, the e-N~~ approach avoids the tedium involved in evaluating átlogmean. A
in graphical form by Bowman, Mueller, and Nagel [6]. Figure 2-4 indicates the detailed comparison of the steps for the first problem follows:
24 Compact Heat Exchangers Exchanger Heat Transfer and Flow-friction Design Theory 25

£-Nt~ Approach Log~mean ~t Approach the coupling-liquid circuit. (3) The lack of a universally satisfactory heat transfer
1. Calculate e from the given terminal 1. Calculate X~ and Z from the given medium.
temperatures. Also calculate Cmth/ terminal temperatures.
Cmax. 2. Use the F0(X, Z) curve for the par
Effectiveness-Nt~ Relations
2. Use the e-N~~ curve for the particu ticular flow arrangement to get FG. The theory of the liquid-coupled indirect-transfer-type exchanger is developed
lar flow arrangement and Cmjn/Cm~ 3. Calculate ~t1ogmean from the termi by London and Kays [9]. It is based on a synthesized solution employing an operat
to evaluate ~ nal temperatures. ing-line—equilibrium-line representation, using for the cold-side unit, (tL, t~)coordi
3. Calculate A from 4. Calculate A from

A = q/UFG~t1ogmeafl Fig. 2—5. Liquid—coupled indirect—transfer type of heat


A = Ntu2~J~
exchanger.
where q is evaluated from the termi
nal temperatures and the appropriate thi th2

capacity rate.
For the second problem, the e-Nt~ approach possesses even greater advantages.
The steps are as follows:

e-Nt~ Approach Log-mean i~t Approach


1. Calculate ~ from the given informa 1. Calculate Z from Z = ~
tion. Also calculate Cmjn/Cm~. 2. Assume terminal temperature so as to
2. Use the e-Nt~ curve for the particular evaluate X~ approx~
flow arrangement and Cmjn/Cm~ to 3. Get FG1~, approx from the curve.
evaluate ~. 4. Evaluate (~tiogmean)ist approx~
3. Calculate q from 5. Determine qist approx from the log-
mean rate equation.
q, = Cmjn(th, in — tc, in)E
6. Calculate terminal temperature to
and terminal temperatures from compare with the assumptions of
i~iates, for the hot-side unit, (th, tL) coordinates, and for the overall performance,
(t~,0~t tc,in)Cc = q step 2.

7. Repeat until satisfactory agreement (th, t~) coordinates, all on the same plane. The results follow:
(th,in — th,out)Ch = q is obtained.
For CL> C~> Ch: =
1h/c~
c (2-20a)
As can be seen, the e-N~~ approach is straightforward whereas the log-mean ~t ap
proach involves successive approximations.

For CL> Ch> C~: e = ~ + C~/Ch — (220b)


Heat Transfer in Liquid-coupled Indirect-type Exchangers
The liquid-coupled indirect-transfer-type exchanger system is pictured in Fig. 2-5.
This system consists of two direct-type exchangers coupled together by the circula For C~> Ch> CL: e = Ch F 1 1 1 1 (2-20c)
tion of a satisfactory heat transfer medium, such as water or a liquid metal. ~i—+—— 1
The principal advantages are: (1) Since the hot-fluid flow area is not tied in CL Lee e11
directly with the cold-fluid flow area, a less awkward heat-exchanger shape may 1
For Ch> C~> CL: C = C F 1 1 1 (2-20d)
result, particularly if there is as much as a 6: 1 disparity in flow densities, as in the
gas-turbine-regenerator application. (2) If the hot and cold fluids are gases, the
liquid coupling will, in general, allow for a better and more compact machinery
~
CL iiCc Ch

arrangement because of the more simple gas-ducting situation. For C~> CL> Ch: e = 1 (2-20e)
The disadvantages are: (1) Greater total transfer area requirement, of the order 1 ChF1
of 10 to 20 per cent for the gas-turbine regenerator. (2) Additional complications of
26 Compact Heat Exchangers Exchanger Heat Transfer and Flow-friction Design Theory 27

For Ch> CL> CC: C =


1 (2-201) Heat Transfer in Periodic-flow-type Exchangers
~ i]
CC CL Ch The two types of periodic-flow exchangers are the rotary and valved types, as de
scribed in Fig. 2-6.
In these relations e is the overall effectiveness for transfer from the hot to the cold In the rotary type, the rotation of the porous matrix provides a flow of the solid
fluids, and CC and Ch are the component effectiveness of the cold-side and hot-side phase from hot-side to cold-side streams in a regular periodic manner. Thus the
direct-transfer exchangers. matrix is alternately heated and cooled, and in this manner, heat is transferred
For the special case of Ch = CC = C, as approximated in the gas-turbine-regen indirectly from the hot to the cold fluids. The relationship of the periodic-flow type
erator application, the foregoing six equations reduce to two: to the previously considered liquid-coupled indirect-transfer type is evident.
ForCh=CC=C>CL: C=1/~’~1 (2-21a)
Fig. 2—6. Periodic—flow—exchanger types.
1 ROTARY TYPE
For Ch = CC = C< CL: C = (2-21b)
1/CC + 1/Ch — C/CL
If the further specification is made that the coupling-liquid capacity rate
CL = CC = Ch = C, the resulting equation is

____________
1 -

1/CC + l/Ch — 1
It is important to note that in Eqs. (2-20a) to (2-22) the overall and component
effectivenesses are defined, as throughout this chapter, by the temperature change for
the fluid having the minimum capacity rate. Thus, for example, if CL> Ch> CC,
VALVED TYPE
— C~(t~2 — tCl)

— CC(thl — tCl)

— Ch(th1 — th2) VALVE


Ch —
Ch(th1 — tL2)
OPEN
CC(tC2 — tCl)
CC CC(tL1 — t~1)

Optimum Conditions of Operation CLOSED

The -foregoing relationships can be used to provide design criteria for optimizing
the coupling-liquid flow rate and the heat transfer area distribution between the hot-
side and cold-side units [9]. For the case of Ch CC = C, the following criteria
result: HOT FLUID
1. The coupling-liquid CL should be kept within the fairly narrow range
0.95 <CL/C < 1.20, with unity being the optimum. The valved type of exchanger has two identical matrices, each one functioning
2. The heat transfer area distribution should be kept within the rather broad alternately as either a hot-flow or a cold-flow matrix by means of a periodic switch
range ing of the quick operating valves. In this exchanger, the mass of the two matrices
0.75 AC 2.0
divided by the period of valve operations corresponds to the mass of the single matrix
UC/Uh Ah < UC/Uh
in the rotary type times the speed of rotation. The heat exchanger design theory will
If the cold-side area is less expensive than the hot-side area, it would pay to unbal apply equally to both types once this correspondence on the matrix mass rate is
ance the design to the right. If the machinery arrangement is such as to make it recognized.
desirable to reduce the cold-side volume, the design may be unbalanced towards the There are three major advantages of the periodic-flow heat exchanger relative
left with no significant loss in performance. to the direct-transfer type:

I’
28 Compact Heat Exchangers Exchanger Heat Transfer and Flow-friction Design Theory 29

1. A much more compact heat transfer surface can be employed. For example,
The higher ~ ranges are of interest in cryogenic heat-exchanger applications.
a 24-mesh screen matrix has an area density of the order of 1,000 ft2/ft3.
However, because of the asymptotic approach of effectiveness towards unity on the
2. The heat transfer surface in general is substantially less expensive per unit of
usual c-Nffi,p graph (Figs. 2-28 to 2-33), it is more revealing to graph (1 — e) versus
transfer area.
~ on log-log coordinates, as in Fig. 2-34 for Cmjn/Cmax = 1 and Fig. 2-35 for
3. Because of the periodic flow reversals there are no permanent flow-stagna
Cmjn/Cmax = 0.95.
tion regions and, consequently, the surface tends to be self-cleaning. The self-clean
In addition to the nondimensional parameters noted in Eq. (2-23), the ratio of
ing feature has been well demonstrated by Ljungstrom-type air preheaters used in
conductances
central station plants employing the very lowest grades of coals.
The major disadvantages are: — hA on the Ca side
\ “ hAontheCmaxside
1. There is some mixing of the hot and cold fluids because of leakage and
carryover.
enters into the analysis. The e-Nt~, o curves in Figs. 2-28 to 2-33 are all based on
2. If the fluids are at different pressures, as in the gas-turbine regenerator, the
(hA)* = 1. However, it is revealed by computer calculations [11, 12] that the influ
sealing problem is a difficult one for the rotary type.
ence of this parameter is quite negligible for the ranges of (hA )* shown on the graphs
Effectiveness-N~~ Relations in Figs. 2-28 to 2-32. The largest error is 2 points on e, which occurs on the
The theory for this type of exchanger is summarized by Coppage and London Cmmn/Cmax = 0.50 graph (Fig. 2-32) at Cr/Ca = 1.0. This error magnitude is
[101. Because of mathematical difficulties, computer solutions are resorted to. Lam halved for Cr/Ca = 1.5. For the C’mmn/Gmax = 1 graph (Fig. 2-28), the maximum
bertson [11] and Bahnke and Howard [121 provide the most comprehensive results. error, again at Cr/Ca = 1.0, is only of the order of 0.2 points on e.
Figures 2-28 to 2-35 and Tables 2-8 to 2-13 were compiled from these sources.
The nondimensional parameters used in these presentations parallel those used
Influence of Matrix Speed
heretofore, with some additions and modifications as follows:
A simple empirical formulation for the influence of Cr/Cmffi, for ii ~ 90 per
= ~ J~.-) (2-23) cent, is
max mm

Here the modified number of transfer units is by definition £ 8comitefliow ~ 1 1.93] (2-24)
]

direct type L 9(Cr/Cnian)


1
Cmin (1/hA)c + (1/hA)5 The right-hand bracket accounts for the matrix speed. The counterfiow direct-trans
fer exchanger effectiveness is a function only of ~ and Cmin/Cmax; it may be deter
The matrix capacity rate is the matrix mass rate times the specific heat of the solid.
mined either from Eq. (2-13) or Fig. 2-12. For higher values of effectiveness (e> 90
For the rotary type,
per cent), an ineffectiveness graph, (1 — e) versus ~ (Figs. 2-34 and 2-35), is
/rev\
Cr[Btu/(hr F)] = ki~) (matrix mass)(cSoimd) recommended in place of Eq. (2-24).
This consideration is significant not only because of the direct influence of Cr
For the valved type, the mass of both of the identical matrices would be used together or c, as indicated by Eq. (2-24), but also because of a carryover loss associated with the
with the valve cycles per hour (with the period being the interval “valve on-to-off- void volume of the matrix. For minimum carryover, it would be desirable to operate
to-on”). Note that the modified number of transfer units ~ parallels that for the at low rotative speed, but this results in a lower e. Another advantage of low-speed
direct-transfer-type exchanger where, for the case of negligible wall resistance and operation is the reduction of seal wear if rubbing seals are employed.
all prime surface (‘flo = 1), Eq. (2-2) yields After a preliminary matrix design is accomplished, Eq. (2-24) can be employed
to investigate the influence of operation at off-design speeds. Figure 2-7 indicates such

~ü= [(*)c~ Gh~)5] an extrapolation. It is evident that the design rotative speed was much higher than
necessary and that a reduction of speed from 31 rpm (corresponding to Cr/Cc = 10.8)
The ranges covered in the e-N~~,o graphs (Figs. 2-28 to 2-35) and tables (Tables 2-8 • to 15 rpm could be made.
to 2-13) are as follows: Matrix speed has a substantial influence on the periodic fluctuation of the matrix
For Cn,jn/Cmax: 1.0, 0.95, 0.90, 0.80, 0.70, 0.50 • temperature. This subject is covered by Mondt [13]. It may be shown by elementary
For Cr/C~,jn: 1 to oc considerations that the average matrix double amplitude is given by
For ~ o: 0 to 100 for some tables
0 to 10 on most graphs tStm,ay = £ (thmn~~tcmn)
Cr/Cmth
30 Compact Heat Exchangers Exchanger Heat Transfer and Flow-friction Design Theory 31

Rotating Seals and Switch Valving and then


— (k/L)A~
A very important aspect of the mechanical design of a periodic-flow heat ex
q~ C
changer is the provision for obtaining flow periodicity with minimum leakage. The
subject is beyond the scope of this monograph. Design problems with respect to rotat Now if q,~ tends to reduce the actual transfer q, q~/q is of the order &/E, where & is the
ing seals are discussed by Hryniszak [14], and the fluid mechanics aspects of clearance decrement in effectiveness; thus
seals are covered by Harper [15]. & (k/L)A~ = A (2-25)
C G~jn

Fig. 2—7. Influence of rotative speed on performance of periodic where A, the nondimensional conduction parameter, is defined as shown. This simply
flow exchanger. determined result provides only a crude approximation of the actual effect of longi
tudinal conduction. When a more complete analysis is attempted, the solutions are
1.0
DESIGN sufficiently complex to require computer calculation. Fortunately, the comprehen
P01 NT
0~ sive results of Bahnke and Howard [12] are available, and Figs. 2-36 and 2-37 were
~ prepared from this reference. In these graphs, exchanger ineffectiveness (1 e) is —.

~ 0.e presented as a function of Nt~ (or ~ o) and A for the two magnitudes of Cmffi/Cm~,

0.7 7
Fig. 2—8. Temperature distribution in a counterfiow
heat exchanger with C~=Ch.
10 20 30 40
RPM

Effect of Longitudinal Conduction in Heat Exchangers t e, out —

The exchanger theory presented to this point is all based on the idealization that there
is no longitudinal conduction (in the flow direction), either in the solid wall or in the
fluid. Fluids generally have a low thermal conductivity (liquid metals excepted), but
— out
the wall conductivity may be quite high. Consequently, only wall-conduction effects
will be considered in the following treatment. The influence of longitudinal conduc
tion is to reduce exchanger effectiveness for a given number of transfer units, and this
reduction may be quite serious in exchangers with short flow lengths designed for high
effectiveness (e > 90 per cent). AR LA
The following oversimplified analysis yields a rough approximation of the influ
ence of longitudinal conduction. Consider the temperature conditions pictured in 1.0 and 0.95, which are of primary interest in the gas-turbine-regenerator application.
Fig. 2-8 for a direct-transfer-type exchanger with Cmjn/Cmax = 1. The temperature While the original paper [12] was concerned only with the periodic-flow-type regen
difference ~~3t shown for the hot fluid is of the same magnitude for the cold fluid and erator, the periodic-flow and direct-transfer types have identical behavior for
also for the wall. Then the wall temperature gradient is 3t/L, with L being the flow Cr/Cmin = 00. Moreover, it is shown that it is only necessary to have Cr/C~n> 5 for
length. If the wall cross-section area for longitudinal conduction is designated Ak, the the periodic-flow behavior to very closely approach the Cr/Cmin = 00, or direct-
longitudinal heat transfer by conduction is of the order transfer-type, behavior. This result is suggested by the previous curves, Figs. 2-28
& to 2-33, which show very little difference between Cr/Cmjn = 5 and co. Note that, as
qk kAk7 in the case of Figs. 2-34 and 2-35, the ineffectiveness (1 e) is a more useful depend

ent parameter than the effectiveness e directly, particularly for e > 90 per cent. The
In contrast, the convection heat transfer rate is given by energy-balance considera logarithmic coordinates are useful in properly emphasizing the importance of the
tions as longitudinal conduction effect. For instance, it is readily apparent from Figs. 2-36
q = C~ & = Ch 6t and 2-37 that if the desired e = 98.5 per cent:
32 Compact Heat Exchangers Exchanger Heat Transfer and Flow-friction Design Theory 33

(5-1) and (5-2)], and by an integration through the core of the momentum equation,
Nt~ % increase
Cmin/Cmax the relation for the flow-stream pressure-drop calculation for most heat exchanger
ForX = 0 I ForA = 0.01 ofNt~ cores is f C)
1
0.95
66
29.5
190
49
189
36
4f= 2-Nt[çiç + V’— a2) + 2Q~-_ 1) ~
P1 2gc 1, V1 A~ V1
V
Entrance Flow Core
effect acceleration friction
Thus the rather striking per cent of increase in N~0 can be readily scaled from the
graph.
This illustration also serves to emphasize the strong influence of Cmin/Cm~ for — (1 — — Ke)ft] (2-26a)
high e heat exchangers. Here only a 5 per cent increase in the capacity-rate ratio from
Exit
0.95 to 1 makes for approximately a 120 per cent and a 375 per cent increase in the effect
required number of transfer units for A = 0 and 0.01, respectively.
However, for flow normal to tube banks or through matrix surfaces, as employed in
periodic-flow-type exchangers, entrance and exit loss effects are accounted for in the
Core Pressure Drop friction factor, and the equation becomes (with K~, Ke = 0), -

In the design of liquid-to-liquid heat exchangers, accurate knowledge of the friction


characteristics of the heat transfer surface is relatively unimportant because of the = + a2)~_ i) +~-4_-~] (2 26b)
‘~Pi 2g~Pi V1 A~v1
flow core
Fig. 2—9. Heat exchanger core model for pressure—drop analysis. acceleration friction
G is based on the minimum free—flow area in the core.
The porosity p replaces a for matrix surfaces.
:i b 2 For multipass arrangements, losses in the return headers must be accounted for
separately, as must any losses in inlet and exit headers and associated ducting.
I I It is worth noting that A/As = L/rh, by definition of the hydraulic radius, Eq.
~ (1-4); further,
• G2 v~ — (v12/2kc)
I I
F LOW I • 2gc P1 — (Pi/pj)
I I where V1 = G/pi is the flow velocity entering the core, based on the minimum free-
rI
~ -tI flow area, which defines G.
The correct mean specific volume to be used in Eqs. (2-26a) and (2-26b) is
1 b 2
= dA (2-27)

low power requirement for pumping high-density fluids. For gases, however, because Consider the flow temperature conditions pictured in Figs. 2-8 and 2-10. For a mag
of their lower density, the friction power per unit mass flow rate is greatly multiplied. nitude of unity for Cmffi/Cm~ (Fig. 2-8), flow-stream temperatures vary linearly with
Thus, to the designer, the friction characteristic of the surface assumes an importance area in a true counterfiow arrangement, and also to a good approximation for any
equal to that of the heat transfer characteristic. The friction characteristic needed flow arrangement other than parallel flow. Consequently,
is the flow-friction factorf which is reported in Chaps. 6, 7, and 10 as a function of
flow geometry and the Reynolds number. Vm P1 Tav
ViPay T1
The Pressure-drop Equation.
01 + 02
Figure 2-9 shows the flow system to be considered. For gas-flow heat-eçchanger or Vm~ (2-27a)
2
applications the pressure changes from sections 1 to a and from b to 2 are ~ery small
relative to the total pressure; thus ~0 v1 and u5 V2. where Tav and ~av are arithmetic averages of the terminal magnitudes. In contrast, if
Then, by definition of the entrance and exit loss coefficients Ke and Ke [Eqs. the wall temperature is essentially uniform (Fig. 2-10), as in the water-cooled inter-
34 Compact Heat Exchangers Exchanger Heat Transfer and Flow-friction Design Theory 35

cooler, the condenser, or the evaporator, Eq. (2-27) reduces, to a good approxima The Core-velocity Equation
tion, to Equations (2-26a) and (2-26b) provide means for evaluating pressure drop given
P1 Tima the core velocity and geometry; however, there is no direct tie of the pressure drop to
(2-27b) heat transfer performance in these relationships. The usual design problem provides
ViPav T1
a specification of both pressure drop and heat transfer performance, and it is desired
where Pay is the arithmetic average of the terminal magnitudes and Tima is related to to evaluate a first approximation for the core velocity in order to obtain a preliminary
the log-mean temperature difference between the fluid with the changing tempera size for the core; An approximate equation useful for this purpose is
f7\
ture and the constant fluid temperature ~tlma by
Vi2/2g~ (L~P/P~ Pm
Time = T00~5t ± ~tima (2-28) ‘~
I
Ntu I one side P1 f
~~1o -

Here, for the conditions shown in the figure, the + sign is used and Here, presumably, the designer is in a position to estimate the allowable pressure
drop (~P/P) on each side and the necessary (Ntu)one side defined by
(th, in — t0) — (th, out — t0) t1~, in — th, out
/.~tima = (2-29)
in [(th, in tc)/(th, out t0)] Ntu IL
— — —
(Ntu)one side = I ~1o Nst
~ r~ one side

which is related to the overall number of heat transfer units by Eq. (2-10). The —
Fig. 2—10. TemperotJ~e distribution in a heat
exchanger of any flow arrangement necessary magnitude can be estimated by working backwards from the given e to the
with CC>>Ch. necessary overall Ntu, estimating or specifying a desirable distribution of heat transfer
resistances, hot and cold sides, and then using Eq. (2-10) to approximate the Ntu, on
each side, as defined above. The ratio Nst/f contains the core-surface characteristics
thin
for a given fluid. Figure 2-38 is a presentation of this characteristic as a function of the
Reynolds number for several rather different surface geometries. -j The important
points to note at this time are that (1) there is relatively small variation in Nst/f for,
say, a two-flow range of NR; (2) there is only about a sixfold range for Nst/f for
markedly different surfaces; and (3) the scale of the surface is of minor importance
th out and enters primarily via the Reynolds number. Thus one can readily estimate a mag
ititude ofNst/fto use in Eq. (2-30) for the purpose of calculating the core flow velocity.
Moreover, from the first-approximation flow velocity the ~ can be evaluated for a
better second approximation of Nst/f for an iterative calculation for V1.
Since the velocity varies as the square root of Nst/J the sixfold extreme range
AREA
of this characteristic means that there can only be a 2k-fold range of velocities possible
(based on free-flow area) by surface-type selection alone. Only a very small change
A similar expression with t0 in place of th would be used if th were essentially constant in V1 is possible by using finer or grosser surfaces of a particular type. Further, a graph
and t~ varied (Ch ~. C0) with the — sign used in Eq. (2-28). such as Fig. 2-38 allows ready selection of surface types which will produce small-flow
The mass velocity G in Eq. (2-26a) is based on the minimum free-flow area, con frontal areas, if this is a design requirement.
sistent with the definition of friction factor employed here. Equation (2-30) is readily derived from Eq. (2-26) by neglecting the entrance
Entrance and exit effects in Eq. (2-26a) normally provide only a small contribu and exit effects along with the flow-acceleration pressure-drop term. Thus the V1
tion to the overall pressure drop in the usual exchanger design because, since A/A0 calculated from Eq. (2-30) tends to be somewhat on the high side.
is quite large, the core-friction term controls the magnitude of iSP. Consequently, high
accuracy in the evaluation of K0 and K~ is not required. Chapter 5 (Figs. 5-2 to 55) Useful Relations for Surface and Core Geometry
reports magnitudes of the entrance- and exit-loss coefficients as functions of flow
Certain geometrical relations are necessary in the application of the basic heat
geometry and the Reynolds number.
transfer and flow-friction data to the design problem. One particular set and form
The friction factorf as used in Eq. (2-26a), is affected by the variation of fluid
of these relations that has proven to be convenient is given here.
properties p and ~t over the flow cross section, as well as variations in the flow direc
tion. Chapter 4 deals with this problem and provides the correctf to use in the pres t Figure 2-38 employs an ordinate (NstNpr213)/f To convert to Nst/f as desired for Eq. (2-30),
sure-drop equations.
‘I multiply by 1.27 for gaseous fluids with Np,. 0.70.
36 Compact Heat Exchangers Exchanger Heat Transfer and Flow-friction Design Theory 37

The dimensions for the different surfaces in Tables 9-1 to 9-5 apply to the equa- — (A~~ = (a~
tions below. These dimensions are, in effect, part of the basic data for the surface in \ L /1 — \ A /1 \La /i (except for matrix surfaces) (2-3 ig)
question. They included the following: V A

b = plate spacing (plate-fin surfaces c~nly~ ft


p = ~-~-
Afr = arh (matrix surfaces only) (2-31h)
rh = flow-passage hydraulic radius c4~L/A, ~
$ = ratio of total transfer area of on~ ~id~ of exchanger to volume between a = (for matrix surfaces only) (2-31 z)
plates of that side (plate-fin surfaces only), ft2/ft3 rh
a = ratio of total transfer area of one side of exchanger to total exchanger vol- Th
ume (given only for crossed-rod matrices, tubular and finned-type sur- A~ = Mfr = arhAfr = A —i- (matrix surfaces only) (2-3 lj)
~ faces), ft2/ft3
p = porosity, void volume/total volume (matrix surfaces only) A = -~ LA~ (matrix surfaces only) (2-31k)
In addition for the plate-fin surfaces the plate thickness a, in feet, must be separately p
specified. A = aLAfr (2-311)
The following geometrical factors are required for each of the two sides of the The following relationst apply for square-mesh crossed-rod matrices only:
complete heat-exchanger core:
V 2 (2-31m)
A = total transfer area of one side of exchanger, ft
A~ = free-flow area of one side, ft2
Afr = frontal area of one side, ft2 a = (xt — 1)2 (2-3m)
L = flow length on one side, ft Xt2

V = total exchanger volume, ft3 2 31


~ a = ratio of total transfer area of one side of exchanger to total exchanger ad = ( - o)
volume (this is already part of given basic data for tubular and finned-
tube surfaces), ft2/ft3 Th = — = ±~ (2-31p)
a = ratio of free-flow to frontal area of one side of exchanger d ~T 4 4 ~d
The equations below give the relations between surface and core factors for
one side of the exchanger. Subscript 1 refers to any one side, and 2 refers to the other References
side; factors without a subscript are common to both sides. The same relations apply
to side 2 with the exchange of subscripts 1 for 2 and 2 for 1. 1. Mason, J. L.: A Design System for Compact Heat Exchangers, lectures presented at University of

/ California, Los Angeles, Sept. 5—15, 1961.


2. Gardiner, K. A.: Efficiency of Extended Surfaces, Trans. ASME, vol. 67, pp. 621—631, 1954.
= L(~~) (2-31a) 3. Mason,J. L.: Heat Transfer in Cross-flow, Proc. Appi. Mechanics 2d U.S. Nat. Congress, p.801, 1954.
4. Stevens, R. A., J. Fernandez, and J. R. Woolf: Mean-temperature Difference in One, Two, and
Three-pass Crossflow Heat Exchangers, Trans. ASME, vol. 79, pp. 287—297, 1957.
a1
1A~ /1—i—I
Ar,~ \ (Arh)1
(except for
= j~ j = = r~ = (arn)1 (2-31 b) 5. Wright, C. C.: Parallel-counter-flow Shell-tube Exchangers, unpublished Stanford University
~~frl1 ~-‘--‘-~frf1 V
matrix surfaces) mechanical engineering report.
6. Bowman, R. A., D. C. Mueller, and W. M. Nagle: Mean Temperature Differences in Heat Ex
bl/3lrh - V changer Design, Trans. ASME, vol. 62, p. 283, 1940.
ai = 1 \ (plate-fin surfaces only) (2-31 c) 7. Iqbal, M., and J. W. Stachiewiez: Thermal Effectiveness of a Split-flow Exchanger, ASME Paper
62-HT-29.
A1 IA\ Ia 8. McAdams, W. H.: “Heat Transmission,” 3d ed., pp. 194—195, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New
= I— (except for matrix surfaces) (2-31d) / York, 1954.
V \LAtr/1 \rh 1
V 9. London, A. L., and W. M. Kays: The Liquid-coupled Indirect-transfer Regenerator for Gas-tur
bine Plants, Trans. ASME vol. 73, p. 529, 1951.
a1 = (plate-fin surfaces only) (2-31e) 10. Coppage, J. E., and A. L. London: The Periodic-flow Regenerator—A Summary of Design
b1 + b2 + 2a Theory, Trans. ASME, vol. 75, p. 779, 1953.

/Arh\ /Aa\ t
A~1 = (aAfr)l = = (except for matrix surfaces) (2-3 if) For matrix surfaces, a, ri,, and p apply to the condition of perfect stacking, i.e., no separation
between layers.
38 Compact Heat Exchangers Table 2-2. Parallel-flow Exchanger Performance
11. Lambertson, T. J.: Performance Factors of a Periodic-flow Heat Exchanger, Trans. ASME vol. 80, Exchanger effectiveness (e) as a function of capacity-rate ratio (Ca/Cnn) and number of heat
transfer units (Nt,,)
p. 586, 1958.
12. Bahnkc, G. D., and C. P. Howard: The Effect of Longitudinal Heat Conduction on Periodic-flow
e for indicated capacity-rate ratios, Cmjn/Cmn
Heat Exchanger Performance, Trans. ASME, vol. 86, p. 105, 1964.
13. Mondt, J. R.: Vehicular Gas Turbine Periodic-flow Heat Exchanger Solid and Fluid Temperature
M11
0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
Distributions, Trans. ASME, vol. 86, p. 121, 1964.
14. Hryniszak, W.: “Heat Exchangers,” Academic Press, Inc., New York, 1958. 0 0 0 0 0 0
15. Harper, D. B.: Seal Leakage in the Rotary Regenerator and Its Effect on Rotary Regenerator 0.25 0.221 0.215 0.208 0.202 0.197
Design for Gas Turbines, Trans. ASM$, vol. 79, p. 233, 1957. - 0.50 0.393 0.372 0.352 0.333 0.316
0.75 0.528 0.487 0.450 0.418 0.388
1.00 0.632 0.571 0.518 0.472 0.432
1.25 0.713 0.632 0.564 0.507 0.459
1.50 0.777 0.677 0.596 0.530 0.475
1.75 0.826 0.710 0.618 0.544 0.485
2.00 0.865 0.734 0.633 0.554 0.491
2.50 0.918 0.765 0.651 0.564 0.497
3.00 0.950 0.781 0.659 0.568 0.498
Table 2-1. Counterfiow Exchanger Performance 3.50 0.970 0.790 0.663 0.570 0.499
4.00 0.982 0.795 0.665 0.57 1 0.500
Exchanger effectiveness (e) as a function of capacity-rate ratio (Ca/Cnn) and number of heat 4.50 0.989 0.797 0.666 0.571 0.500
transfer units (Nt,,) 5.00 0.993 0.799 0.666 0.571 0.500
~ 1.000 0.800 0.667 0.57 1 0.500
e for indicated capacity-rate ratios, C,,,~n/Cmn
Nt,,
0 0.25 0.50 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.90 1.00
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Table 2-3. Crossflow Exchanger with Both Fluids Unmixed
0.25 0.221 0.216 0.210 0.206 0.205 0.204 0.202 0.200
0.50 0.393 0.378 0.362 0.350 0.348 0.345 0.339 0.333 Crossfiow (both- fluids unmixed) exchanger effectiveness (e) as a function of capacity-rate ratio
0.75 0.528 0.502 0.477 0.457 0.452 0.447 0.438 0.429
(Ca/Cnn) and number of heat transfer units (Ne,,)
1.00 0.632 0.598 0.565 0.538 0.532 0.525 0.513 0.500
‘ e for indicated capacity-rate ratios, C,,,j,,/Cmn
1.25 0.713 0.675 0.635 0.603 0.595 0.587 0.571 0.556
Nt,,
1.50 0.777 0.735 0.691 0.655 0.645 0.636 0.618 0.600 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
1.75 0.826 0.784 0.737 0.697 0.687 0.677 0.657 0.636
2.00 0.865 0.823 0.775 0.733 0.722 0.711 0.689 0.667 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 o.oo6 0.000
2.50 0.918 0.880 0.833 0.788 0.777 0.764 0.740 0.714 0.25 0.221 0.215 0.209 0.204 0.199
3.00 0.950 0.919 0.875 0.829 0.817 0.804 0.778 0.750 0.50 0.393 0.375 0.358 0.341 0.326
3.50 0.970 0.945 0.905 0.861 0.848 0.835 0.807 0.778 0.75 0.528 0.495 0.466 0.439 0.413
4.00 0.982 0.962 0.928 0.886 0.873 0.860 0.831 0.800 1.00 0.632 0.588 0.547 0.510 0.476
4.50 0.989 0.974 0.944 0.905 0.893 0.880 0.850 0.818 1.25 0.7 14 0.660 0.610 0.565 0.523
5.00 0.993 0.982 0.957 0.921 0.909 0.896 0.866 0.833 1.50 0.777 0.716 0.660 0.608 0.560
5.50 0.996 0.998 0.968 0.933 0.922 0.909 0.880 0.846 1.75 0.826 0.761 0.700 0.642 0.590
6.00 0.975 0.944 0.921 0.892 0.857 2.00 0.865 0.797 0.732 0.671 0.614
6.50 0.980 0.953 0.930 0.902 0.867 2.50 0.918 0.851 0.783 0.716 0.652
7.00 0.985 0.960 0.939 0.910 0.875 3.00 0.950 0.888 0.819 0.749 0.681
7.50 0.988 0.966 0.946 0.918 0.882 3.50 0.970 0.915 0.848 0.776 0.704
8.00 0.991 0.971 0.952 0.925 0.889 • 4.00 0.982 0.934 0.869 0.797 0.722
8.50 0.993 0.975 0.957 0.931 0.895 4.50 0.989 0.948 0.887 0.814 0.737
9.00 0.994 0.979 0.962 0.936 0.900 5.00 0.993 0.959 0.901 0.829 0.751
9.50 0.996 0.982 0.966 0.941 0.905 6.00 0.997 0.974 0.924 0.853 0.772
10.00 0.997 0.985 0.970 0.945 0.909 7.00 0.999 0.983 0.940 0.871 0.789
~ 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 co 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

39
.1 -
40 Compact Heat Exchangers Exchanger Heat Transfer and Flow-friction Design Theory 41

Table 2-4. Crossflow Exchanger with One Fluid Mixed


Crossflow (one fluid “mixed,” the other fluid “unmixed”) exchanger effectiveness (s) as a function of
capacity-rate ratio (Cmj~ed/Cunm~xed) and number of heat transfer units (Nt,,)

e for indicated capacity-rate ratios, Cmjxed/Cu,,,~ed


N5,,
0 0.25 4.00 0.50 2.00 0.75 1.333 1.000

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.25 0.221 0.215 0.213 0.209 0.209 0.204 0.204 0.198
0.50 0.393 0.375 0.375 0.358 0.357 0.341 0.341 0.325
0.75 0.528 0.495 0.494 0.465 0.463 0.463 0.435 0.410
1.00 0.632 0.587 0.585 0.545 0.542 0.505 0.503 0.469
1.25 0.713 0.658 0.654 0.605 0.600 0.556 0.552 0.510
1.50 0.777 0.714 0.706 0.652 0.644 0.594 0.589 0.540 Table 2-6. Parallel-Counterfiow Exchanger with Shell Fluid Mixed
1.75 0.826 0.758 0.747 0.689 0.677 0.623 0.616 0.562
Parallel-counterfiow (one fluid mixed) exchanger effectiveness (e) as a function of capacity-rate ratio
2.00 0.865 0.793 0.778 0.715 0.702 0.645 0.636 0.579
(Cmtn/Cmax) and number of heat transfer units (N5,,)
2.50 0.918 0.844 0.820 0.760 0.736 0.677 0.663 0.601
3.00 0.950 0.879 0.846 0.789 0.756 0.697 0.679 0.613 e for indicated capacity-rate ratios, Cmin/Gmax
3.50 0.970 0.903 0.861 0.808 0.768 0.710 0.689 0.621 Nt,,
0.0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
4.00 0.982 0.920 0.870 0.823 0.776 0.718 0.695 0.625
4.50 0.989 0.933 0.876 0.834 0.780 0.724 0.698 0.628
0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
5.00 0.993 0.942 0.880 0.841 0.783 0.728 0.700 0.630
0.25 0.221 0.215 0.209 0.204 0.198
so 1.000 0.982 0.885 0.865 0.787 0.736 0.703 0.632 0.50 0.393 0.375 0.357 0.340 0.324
0.75 0.528 0.494 0.463 0.434 0.407
1.00 0.632 0.584 0.540 0.500 0.463
1.25 0.714 0.652 0.597 0.546 0.500
1.50. 0.777 0.705 0.639 0.579 0.526
1.75 0.826 0.744 0.670 0.603 0.544
2.00 0.865 0.775 0.693 0.620 0.557
Table 2-5. Crossflow Exchanger with Both Fluids Mixed
2.50 0.918 0.816 0.724 0.642 0.572
Crossflow (both fluids mixed) exchanger effectiveness (e) as a function of capacity-rate ratio 3.00 0.950 0.841 0.741 0.654 0.579
(Cmth/Cmax) and number of heat transfer units (N5,,) 3.50 0.970 0.855 0.751 0.660 0.582
4.00 0.982 0.864 0.757 0.663 0.584
e for indicated capacity-rate ratios, Cm.j,,/Cm,,~, 4.50 0.989 0.869 0.760 0.665 0.585
Nt,,
5.00 0.993 0.872 0.762 0.666 0.585
0 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
so 1.000 0.877 0.764 0.667 0.586
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.20 0.181 0.178 0.175 0.172 0.169 0.166
0.60 0.451 0.431 0.412 0.395 0.378 0.362
1.00 0.632 0.593 0.557 0.523 0.491 0.462
1.40 0.753 0.698 0.647 0.599 0.555 0.515
1.80 0.835 0.767 0.703 0.645 0.591 0.543
2.00 0.865 0.792 0.723 0.660 0.603 0.552
2.20 0.889 0.812 0.739 0.672 0.611 0.557
2.60 0.926 0.841 0.761 0.687 0.621 0.563
3.00 0.950 0.860 0.774 0.695 0.625 0.565 4
3.50 0.970 0.875 0.783 0.700 0.626 0.563
4.00 0.982 0.884 0.787 0.700 0.624 0.559
4.50 0.989 0.888 0.789 0.698 0.621 0.555
5.00 0.993 0.890 0.788 0.695 0.617 0.551

I
42 Compact Heat Exchangers Exchanger Heat Transfer and Flow-friction Design Theory 43

Table 2-7a. Split-flow Exchanger, Ctube = Crnjn


Table 2-7b. Split-flow Exchanger, Cshell = Cmin
Split-flow exchanger with shell fluid mixed. Exchanger effectiveness (e) as a function of capacity-rate
Split-flow exchanger (shell fluid mixed) effectiveness (e) as a function of capacity rate (Cmjn/Cm~x)
ratio (Cmjn/Cm~) and number of transfer units (N5,~) for ~ =
and number of heat transfer units (Nt~) for Cshen Cm.jn
e for indicated capacity-rate ratios e for indicated capacity-rate ratios
~
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
0.5 0.393 0.378 0.364 0.350 0.337 0.324 0.5 0.393 0.378 0.364 0.350 0.337 0.324
1.0 0.632 0.593 0.557 0.523 0.491 0.462 0.632 0.593 0.557 0.523 0.492 0.462
1.0
1.5 0.777 0.718 0.663 0.613 0.566 0.524 0.777 0.718 0.664 0.613 0.567 0.524
1.5
2.0 0.865 0.791 0.722 0.660 0.603 0.552 2.0 0.865 0.792 0.723 0.661 0.603 0.552
2.5 0.918 0.833 0.755 0.683 0.619 0.562 0.918 0.835 0.757 0.685 0.620 0.562
2.5
3.0 0.950 0.857 0.771 0.693 0.624 0.564 0.950 0.861 0.775 0.697 0.626 0.564
3.0
3.5 0.970 0.870 0.778 0.695 0.623 0.561 0.970 0.876 0.785 0.701 0.627 0.561
3.5
4.0 0.982 0.876 0.779 0.693 0.619 0.556 0.982 0.884 0.789 0.702 0.624 0.556
4.0
4.5 0.989 0.878 0.777 0.689 0.614 0.551 0.989 0.889 0.791 0.700 0.620 0.551
4.5
5.0 0.993 0.877 0.773 0.683 0.607 0.545 0.993 0.892 0.790 0.697 0.615 0.544
5.0
5.5
6.0
0.996
0.998
0.875
0.872
0.768
0.762
0.676
0.670
0.601
0.594
0.538
0.532 I 5.5
6.0
0.996
fu998
0.893
0.893
0.789
0.787
0.693
0.689
0.609
0.604
0.538
0.532
6.5 0.999 0.868 0.756 0.663 0.588 0.526 0.999 0.893 0.785 0.685 0.599 0.526
6.5
7.0 0.999 0.864 0.750 0.656 0.581 0.520 0.999 0.892 0.782 0.680 0.593 0.520
7.0
7.5 0.999 0.860 0.744 0.650 0.575 0.515 0.999 0.892 0.780 0.676 0.588 0.515
7.5
8.0 1.000 0.856 0.738 0.644 0.569 0.510 1.000 0.891 0.777 0.672 0.583 0.510
8.0
8.5 1.000 0.852 0.732 0.638 0.564 0.505 1.000 0.890 0.774 0.668 0.578 0.505
8.5
9.0 1.000 0.849 0.727 0.632 0.559 0.500 1.000 0.889 0.771 0.664 0.573 0.500
9.0
9.5 1.000 0.846 0.722 0.627 0.554 0.496 1.000 0.888 0.769 0.660 0.569 0.496
9.5
10.0 1.000 0.843 0.718 0.622 0.549 0.492
10.0 1.000 0.887 0.766 0.656 0.564 0.492

A
44 Compact Heat Exchangers Exchanger Heat Transfer and Flow-friction Design Theory 45

Table 2-8. Periodic-flow Exchanger, C~n/Cm~ = 1.0


Table 2-9. Periodic-flow Exchanger, Cmjn/Cm~, = 0.95
Exchanger effectiveness (e) as a function of matrix capacity-rate ratio (C,./Cmin) and modified number
of heat transfer units ~ o) Exchanger effectiveness (e) as a function of matrix capacity-rate ratio (Cr/Cmjn) and modified number
of heat transfer units (Nt~ o)
e for the indicated matrix capacity-rate ratios, Cr/C~n
~ e for the indicated matrix capacity-rate ratios, C,./Cmjn
1.0 1.25 1.5 2.0 3.0 5.0 10.0 N5~,o
1.0 1.25 1.5 2.0 3.0 5.0 10.0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.5 0.322 0.326 0.328 0.330 0.332 0.333 0.333 0.333 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.0 0.467 0.478 0.485 0.491 0.496 0.499 0.500 0.500 0.5 0.325 0.329 0.331 0.333 0.335 0.336 0.336 0.336
1.5 0.548 0.566 0.576 0.586 0.594 0.598 0.599 0.600 1.0 0.471 0.483 0.490 0.497 0.502 0.505 0.506 0.506
2.0 0.601 0.623 0.636 0.649 0.659 0.664 0.666 0.667 1.5 0.554 0.573 0.584 0.594 0.602 0.607 0.608 0.609
2.0 0.608 0.632 0.645 0.659 0.669 0.675 0.677 0.678
2.5 0.639 0.665 0.679 0.694 0.705 0.711 0.713 0.714
3.0 0.667 0.696 0.712 0.728 0.740 0.746 0.749 0.750 2.5 0.647 0.674 0.690 0.706 0.717 0.723 0.726 0.727
3.5 0.690 0.721 0.738 0.755 0.767 0.774 0.777 0.778 3.0 0.676 0.707 0.723 0.741 0.753 0.760 0.763 0.764
4.0 0.709 0.741 0.759 0.776 0.789 0.796 0.799 0.800 3.5 0.699 0.732 0.750 0.768 0.781 0.789 0.792 0.793
4.5 0.724 0.758 0.776 0.794 0.807 0.814 0.817 0.818 4.0 0.718 0.753 0.772 0.790 0.804 0.811 0.815 0.816
4.5 0.734 0.770 0.790 0.809 0.822 0.830 0.833 0.835
5.0 0.738 0.772 0.791 0.809 0.822 0.829 0.832 0.833
5.5 0.749 0.785 0.803 0.821 0.834 0.842 0.845 0.846 5.0 0.748 0.785 0.805 0.824 0.838 0.846 0.849 0.850
6.0 0.759 0.796 0.814 0.832 0.845 0.853 0.856 0.857 5.5 0.759 0.798 0.818 0.837 0.851 0.859 0.862 0.864
6.5 0.768 0.805 0.824 0.842 0.855 0.862 0.865 0.867 6.0 0.770 0.809 0.829 0.848 0.862 0.870 0.874 0.875
7.0 0.776 0.814 0.833 0.850 0.863 0.870 0.874 0.875 6.5 0.779 0.819 0.839 0.858 0.872 0.880 0.884 0.885
7.0 0.787 0.828 0.848 0.867 0.881 0.889 0.892 0.893
7.5 0.784 0.822 0.840 0.858 0.871 0.878 0.881 0.882
8.0 0.790 0.829 0.847 0.865 0.877 0.884 0.888 0.889 7.5 0.794 0.836 0.856 0.875 0.889 0.896 0.900 0.901
8.5 0.796 0.835 0.854 0.871 0.883 0.890 0.894 0.895 8.0 0.801 0.843 0.863 0.882 0.895 0.903 0.906 0.908
9.0 0.802 0.841 0.859 0.876 0.888 0.895 0.899 0.900 8.5 0.807 0.850 0.870 0.888 0.901 0.909 0.912 0.914
9.5 0.807 0.846 0.864 0.881 0.893 0.900 0.904 0.905 9.0 0.813 0.855 0.876 0.894 0.907 0.914 0.918 0.919
9.5 0.818 0.861 0.881 0.899 0.912 0.919 0.923 0.924
10.0 0.811 0.851 0.869 0.886 0.898 0.904 0.908 0.909
20.0 0.865 0.906 0.922 0.935 0.943 0.948 0.951 0.952 10.0 0.823 0.866 0.886 0.904 0.917 0.924 0.927 0.928
50.0 0.914 0.951 0.962 0.970 0.975 0.978 0.980 0.980 20.0 0.877 0.940 0.954 0.968 0.971 0.972
90.0 0.935 0.969 0.977 0.982 0.986 0.987 0.988 0.989 50.0 0.926 0.969 0.978 0.987 0.992 0.994 0.995 0.996
100.0 0.939 0.979 0.984 0.989 0.989 0.990 90.0 0.947 0.985 0.993 0.996 0.998 0.999 0.999 0.999
100.0 0.950 0.994 0.997 0.999 1.000 1.000
500.0 0.974 0.995 0.996 0.998 0.998 0.998

I
46 Compact Heat Exchangers Exchanger Heat Transfer and Flow-friction Design Theory 47

Table 2-10. Periodic-flow Exchanger, Cmjn/Cm~ = 0.90


Exchanger effectiveness (e) as a function of matrix capacity-rate ratio (Cr/Cmjn) and modified r.umber Table 2-11. Periodic-flow Exchanger Cmin/Cmax = 0.80
of heat transfer units (Nt,,, o)
Exchanger effectiveness (e) as a function of matrix capacity-rate ratio (Cr/C,,ü,,) and modified number
e for the indicated matrix capacity-rate ratios, C~/Cmj~ of heat transfer units (Nt,, o)
N5,,,0
1.0 1.25 1.5 2.0 3.0 5.0 10.0 cc e for the indicated matrix capacity-rate ratios, C,./Cmjn
N5,,,0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.0 1.25 1.5 2.0 3.0 5.0 10.0 cc
0.5 0.327 0.331 0.334 0.336 0.338 0.338 0.339 0.339
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.0 0.476 0.489 0.496 0.503 0.508 0.511 0.512 0.513
0.5 0.332 0.337 0.339 0.341 0.343 0.344 0.345 0.345
1.5 0.560 0.580 0.591 0.603 0.611 0.616 0.617 0.618
1.0 0.486 0.500 0.507 0.515 0.521 0.524 0.525 0.525
2.0 0.616 0.641 0.655 0.669 0.680 0.686 0.688 0.689
1.5 0.573 0.595 0.607 0.619 0.629 0.634 0.636 0.636
2.5 0.655 0.684 0.700 0.717 0.729 0.736 0.739 0.740 2.0 0.630 0.657 0.673 0.689 0.701 0.707 0.710 0.711
3.0 0.685 0.717 0.735 0.753 0.766 0.774 0.777 0.778
2.5 0.670 0.702 0.721 0.739 0.753 0.760 0.763 0.764
3.5 0.708 0.743 0.762 0.781 0.795 0.803 0.806 0.807
3.0 0.701 0.737 0.757 0.777 0.792 0.800 0.803 0.804
4.0 0.727 0.764 0.784 0.804 0.819 0.826 0.830 0.831
3.5 0.725 0.763 0.785 0.806 0.822 0.830 0.834 0.835
4.5 0.744 0.782 0.803 0.823 0.838 0.846 0.849 0.850
4.0 0.744 0.785 0.808 0.830 0.846 0.855 0.858 0.860
5.0 0.757 0.797 0.818 0.839 0.853 0.862 0.865 0.866 4.5 0.760 0.804 0.827 0.849 0.866 0.874 0.878 0.880
5.5 0.769 0.810 0.831 0.852 0.867 0.875 0.879 0.880
5.0 0.774 0.819 0.843 0.866 0.882 0.891 0.894 0.896
6.0 0.780 0.822 0.843 0.864 0.878 0.887 0.890 0.892
5.5 0.786 0.832 0.856 0.879 0.895 0.904 0.908 0.909
6.5 0.789 0.832 0.853 0.874 0.888 0.896 0.900 0.902
6.0 0.797 0.844 0.868 0.891 0.907 0.915 0.919 0.921
7.0 0.797 0.841 0.862 0.883 0.897 0.905 0.909 0.910
6.5 0.806 0.854 0.879 0.901 0.917 0.925 0.929 0.930
7.5 0.804 0.849 0.871 0.891 0.905 0.913 0.917 0.918 7.0 0.814 0.863 0.888 0.910 0.925 0.933 0.937 0.939
8.0 0.811 0.856 0.879 0.898 0.912 0.920 0.923 0.925
7.5 0.821 0.871 0.896 0.918 0.933 0.941 0.944 0.946
8.5 0.817 0.863 0.884 0.904 0.918 0.926 0.929 0.931
8.0 0.828 0.879 0.903 0.925 0.939 0.947 0.951 0.952
9.0 0.823 0.869 0.891 0.910 0.923 0.931 0.935 0.936
8.5 0.834 0.886 0.910 0.931 0.945 0.952 0.956 0.957
9.5 0.828 0.874 0.896 0.915 0.928 0.936 0.939 0.941
9.0 0.839 0.892 0.916 0.936 0.950 0.957 0.961 0.962
10.0 0.833 0.880 0.901 0.920 0.933 0.940 0.944 0.945 9.5 0.845 0.897 0.921 0.941 0.955 0.961 0.965 0.966
20.0 0.887 0.954 0.968 0.981 0.984 0.985
10.0 0.849 0.902 0.926 0.946 0.959 0.965 0.968 0.970
40.0 0.925 0.984 0.992 0.997 0.998 0.998
100.0 0.956 0.999 0.999 1.000 1.000 1.000
48 Compact Heat Exchangers Exchanger Heat Transfer and Flow-friction Design Theory 49

Table 2-12. Periodic-flow Exchanger, Cnijn/Cmax = 0.70 Table 2-13. Periodic-flow Exchanger, C~n/Cm~, = 0.50
Exchanger effectiveness (e) as a function of matrix capacity-rate ratio (Cr/Cmin) and modified number Exchanger effectiveness (e) as a function of matrix capacity-rate ratio (C,~/Cmin) and modified number
of heat transfer units (N5~ o) of heat transfer units (N5~ o)

e for the indicated matrix capacity-rate ratios, Cr/Cmjn e for the indicated capacity-rate ratios, Cr/Cmi,~
Nt~,o N5~o
1.0 1.25 1.50 2.00 3.00 5.00 10.00 00 1.0 1.25 1.50 2.00 3.00 5.00 10.00 ~

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.5 0.337 0.342 0.344 0.347 0.349 0.350 0.350 0.350 0.5 0.348 0.353 0.356 0.359 0.361 0.362 0.362 0.362
1.0 0.496 0.510 0.519 0.527 0.533 0.537 0.538 0.538 1.0 0.516 0.532 0.542 0.552 0.559 0.563 0.564 0.565
1.5 0.586 0.609 0.622 0.636 0.646 0.652 0.654 0.655 1.5 0.610 0.637 0.652 0.669 0.681 0.687 0.690 0.691
2.0 0.644 0.674 0.691 0.709 0.722 0.729 0.732 0.733 2.0 0.669 0.704 0.725 0.746 0.762 0.770 0.773 0.775
2.5 0.685 0.720 0.740 0.761 0.776 0.784 0.787 0.788 2.5 0.710 0.752 0.776 0.800 0.818 0.828 0.832 0.833
3.0 0.716 0.755 0.777 0.800 0.816 0.825 0.828 0.829 3.0 0.740 0.787 0.813 0.840 0.859 0.869 0.873 0.874
3.5 0.740 0.782 0.806 0.830 0.847 0.856 0.860 0.861 3.5 0.763 0.814 0.842 0.870 0.889 0.899 0.903 0.905
4.0 0.759 0.804 0.829 0.854 0.871 0.880 0.884 0.886 4.0 0.782 0.835 0.865 0.893 0.912 0.922 0.926 0.927
4.5 0.775 0.823 0.848 0.873 0.890 0.900 0.904 0.905 4.5 0.797 0.853 0.883 0.911 0.930 0.939 0.943 0.944
5.0 0.789 0.838 0.864 0.889 0.906 0.915 0.919 0.921 5.0 0.809 0.867 0.898 0.926 0.944 0.952 0.956 0.957
5.5 0.800 0.851 0.878 0.903 0.919 0.928 0.932 0.933 5.5 0.819 0.879 0.910 0.937 0.954 0.963 0.966 0.967
6.0 0.810 0.863 0.890 0.914 0.930 0.939 0.943 0.944 6.0 0.828 0.890 0.920 0.947 0.963 0.970 0.973 0.975
6.5 0.819 0.873 0.900 0.924 0.939 0.948 0.951 0.953 6.5 0.836 0.898 0.929 0.955 0.970 0.977 0.979 0.980
7.0 0.827 0.882 0.909 0.932 0.947 0.955 0.959 0.960 7.0 0.843 0.906 0.937 0.961 0.975 0.981 0.984 0.985
7.5 0.834 0.890 0.916 0.939 0.954 0.961 0.965 0.966 7.5 0.849 0.913 0.943 0.967 0.980 0.985 0.987 0.988
8.0 0.840 0.897 0.923 0.946 0.960 0.967 0.970 0.971 8.0 0.855 0.919 0.949 0.972 0.983 0.988 0.990 0.991
8.5 0.846 0.903 0.929 0.951 0.965 0.971 0.974 0.975 8.5 0.860 0.924 0.954 0.976 0.986 0.991 0.992 0.993
9.0 0.851 0.909 0.935 0.956 0.969 0.975 0.978 0.979 9.0 0.864 0.929 0.958 0.979 0.989 0.992 0.994 0.994
9.5 0.856 0.914 0.940 0.960 0.972 0.978 0.981 0.982 9.5 0.868 0.934 0.962 0.982 0.991 0.994 0.995 0.996
10.0 0.860 0.919 0.944 0.964 0.976 0.981 0.984 0.985 10.0 0.872 0.937 0.965 0.984 0.992 0.995 0.996 0.997

4
50 Compact Heat Exchangers Fig. 2—14. Heat transfer effectiveness as a function
of number of transfer units and capacity
Fig. 2—11. Heat transfer effectiveness of straight and circular fins. rate ratio; crossf low exchanger with
fluids unmixed.
I.c_.~~— ——————— ——


~
N\, STRAIGHT FINS
~ ~ —

~
~~
?7f T~k~
—_——

~
6_~~_~~4 ~~~~______

~
U.)
~
Cl)
Cl)
(Li
z
ILl
>
I—
C)
w
U
-u .6 .8 10 .4 16 1,8 2.0 2.2 2.4 U
m(r~—~) Ui

(m 1)

NO. OF TRANSFER UNITS, Nt5 AU/Cmjn

Fig. 2—15. Heat transfer effectiveness as a function


Fig. 2—12. Heat transfer effectiveness as a Fig. 2—13. Heat transfer effectiveness as a of number of transfer units and capacity
function of number of transfer function of number of transfer rate ratio; crossf low exchanger with one
units and capacity rate ratio; units and capacity rate ratio; fluid mixed.
counterflow exchanger. parallel—flow exchanger~

/
HEAT TRANSFER LHEAT TRANSFER
SURFACE
SUR FACE

(0

Cl)
Cl)
w
z
LLI
>
I
1)
Iii
L

NO. OF TRANSFER UNITS, Ntu = AU/Cmin NO. OF TRANSFER UNITS, Nt5 = AU/Cmin NO. OF TRANSFER UNITS, Nt5 AU/Cmin

51
Fig. 2—16. Heat transfer effectiveness as a function Fig. 2—18. Heat transfer effectiveness as a function of
of number of transfer units and capacity number of transfer units and number of
rate ratio; crossflow exchanger with both passes; multipass cross—counterf low exchanger
fluids mixed. = 1; unmixed flow within passes,

one fluid unmixed between passes.

U)
U) U)
U,
Lu U,
U,
Lu Lu
>
Lu
I— >
C-)
Lu
U C-)
U Ui
Lu U
U
Lu

3 4 5
NO. OF TRANSFER UNITS, Nt~ = AU/Cmin 0 1 2 3 4 5
NUMBER OF TRANSFER UNITS, N~, =AU/C,,,~.

Fig. 2—17. Heat transfer effectiveness as a function of Fig. 2—19. Heat transfer effectiveness as a function of
number of transfer units and number of number of transfer units and number of
passes; multipass cross—counterfiow exchanger passes; multipass cross—counterflow exchanger
= 1; unmixed flow within passes, = 1; unmixed flow within passes,

both fluids mixed between passes. both fluids unmixed between passes.

90

U)
80 ~H — COUNTERFLO~ -~

U)
U-,
(1)
7C- U)
Cl) U)
Cl) >
Ui
z - ~<~ASS C—
C-)
U)
>
7 U)
1~~
C-) U)
U)
U
U ~n
U)

40_L_± I ~ 4 ~
1,
0 1 2 3 4 5
NUMBER OF TRANSFER UNITS, N,~ =AU/Cmi,
NO. OF TRANSFER UNITS, Ntu = AU/Cmin
52 5.3
Fig. 2—20. Heat transfer effectiveness as a function of Fig. 2—22. Heat transfer effectiveness as a function of
number of transfer units and capacity rate
number of transfer units and capacity rate
ratio; 1—2 para lie i—counterf low exchanger.
ratio; 3—6 multipass counterfiow exchanger.
j~S~LLL FLUID SHELL FLUID

SHELLS
L_TUBE FLUID I~
ONE SHELL PASS TUBE FLUID
2,4,6,.. .,TUBE PASSES

‘A)

(I)
U)
LIJ U)
z U)
Ui
> z
Lii
I >
0
ILl I-
0
UJ
Ui Li.
IL)

NO. OF TRANSFER UNITS, Nt2 = AU/Cmin NO. OF TRANSFER UNITS, Ntu = AU/Cmjn

Fig. 2—21. Heat transfer effectiveness as a function of Fig. 2—23. Heat transfer effectiveness as a function of
number of transfer units and capacity rate number of transfer units and capacity rate
ratio; 2—4 muitipass counterf low exchanger. ratio; 4—8 muitipass counterfiow exchanger.
SHELL FLUID
SHELL FLUID

Th
2 II’,
SHELLS 4
SHELLS I

TUBE FLUID I~I


~~UBE FLUID
TWO SHELL PASSES FOUR SHELL PASSES
4,6,12, . .,TUBE PASSES 8, 6, 24,• ., TUBE PASSES

— — Gm~/Cm~0~ ~
80__~EE*_ —

~
Cl)
60-v
U) U)
U)
Ui Lii
z z
Lii Ui
> >

::~EEEEEE
I-. I—
0
Ui 0
Li. Lii
U.. Li.
Ui Ll~ --
Lii

(-I S 5
NO. OF TRANSFER UNITS, Ntu AU/Cmin
NO. OF TRANSFER UNITS, Ntu = AU/Cmin
54 55
Fig. 2—24. Heat transfer effectiveness as a function of Exchanger Heat Transfer and Flow-friction Design Theory 57
number of transfer units and capacity rate
ratio; split—flow exchanger, shell fluid Fig. 2—26. Heat transfer effectiveness as a function of
mixed. number of transfer units; multipass counterfiow
exchanger (parallel—counterfiow posses);
SHELL FLUID
MIXED effect of number of shell passes for
~ = 1.

U)
5) U)
Lii
U, z
U, LU
UI >
UI I
> U
Lii
I— U
C) U.
UI
U LU
CL
UI

I 2
NO. OF TRANSFER UNITS, Nt~ AU/Cmjn

0 2 4 6 8 10
NO. OF TRANSFER UNITS, Ntu AU/Cmjn

Fig. 2—25. Heat transfer effectiveness as a function of Fig. 2—27. Heat transfer effectiveness as a function
number of transfer units; effect of flow of number of transfer units; effect of
arrangement for CminIC~x = 1. C~,nICmax•

100

~ 80
(.j

(n U)
U) U)
LU LU
z z
LU LU
> >
I I—
C) C)
LU Lii
U. Li.
U- Li.
Lii Lii

NO. OF TRANSFER UNITS, Ntu AU/Cmjn NO. OF TRANSFER UNITS, Ntu AU/Cmjn

56
Fig. 2—28. Heat transfer effectiveness as a function of Fig. 2—30. Heat transfer effectiveness as a function of
number of transfer units and matrix capacity number of transfer units and matrix capacity
rate ratio; periodic—flow exchanger rate ratio; periodic—flow exchanger
performance for C~/C,~ = 1. performance for C~io/Cm~sx = 0.9.

~ MATRIX
100

90
UI UI
(I,

!i
C),
UI
UI
>
I—
C.)
UI
U
U-
LII

0 2 4 6 8 10 2 4 6 8 10
MODIFIED TRANSFER UNITS N~~0 MODIFIED TRANSFER UNITS N~~0

Fig. 2—29. Heat transfer effectiveness as a function of


Fig. 2—31. Heat transfer effectiveness as a function of
number of transfer units and matrix capacity number of transfer units and matrix capacity
rate ratio; periodic—flow exchanger rate ratio; periodic—flow exchanger
performance for CminlCm = 0.95. performance for C~/C~,1 = 0.8.

MATRIX ~C MATRIX

100

90
UI
UI
C),

LU 80
UI
>
I—
C.)
UI C.) 70
LI~ UI
Li- L1~
UI U-
UI

60

0 50
4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
MODIFIED TRANSFER UNITS N~~0 MODIFIED TRANSFER UNITS N~~0
58 59
Fig. 2—32. Heat transfer effectiveness as a function of Fig. 2—34. Heat transfer ineffectiveness as a function
number of transfer units and matrix capacity of number of transfer units and matrix
rate ratio; periodic—flow exchanger capacity rate ratio; periodic—flow exchanger
performance for C~/C~ 0.7. performance for C~in/Cm~,x = 1.
20

MATRIX

5)

LI,
LU C’,

(I,
LU
LI, LU
LU >
LU I-
> C.)
LU
F— U
C.) U-
uJ LU
Li~ z
LU

2 4 6 8 10
MODIFIED TRANSFER UNITS N~~0

Fig. 2—35. Heat transfer ineffectiveness as a function


Fig. 2—33. Heat transfer effectiveness as a function of
of number of transfer units and matrix
number of transfer units and matrix capacity
capacity rate ratio; periodic—flow exchanger
rate ratio; periodic—flow exchanger
performance for ~ = 0.95.
performance for C~/C,~ = 0.5.

5)

U,
U,
LU
5) LU
>
LI1
C!)
I—
LU LU
LU
LU U
U-
> LU
F—
LU
LU
Li~
U-
LU

1
0 2 4 6 8 10 10 20 30 40 50 60 80 100
MODIFIED TRANSFER UNITS N~00 ~

60 61
62 Compact Heat Exchangers Exchanger Heat Transfer and Flow-friction Design Theory 63

Fig. 2—36. Effect of longitudinal thermal conductivity on the performance of periodic—


flow and direct—transfer exchangers; Cr,jn/C~,~ = 1, Cr/Cmin >5.
10

6
5
4
Co

3
U~)
C,)
LU
2
U-I
>
F—
C-)
u-I Fig. 2—38. Ratio of Stanton number to friction factor for a number of illustrative cases.
U
U
LU
1
0.8

0.6
0.5
10 20 30 40 50 60 80 100 200 300 400
~ ~ OR ~ 0.20
z

Fig. 2—37. Effect of longitudinal thermal conductivity on the performance of periodic—


flow and direct—transfer exchangers; C~/C~, = 0.95, Cr/C~jn >5~ 0.07

200 400 1,000 10,000 40,000

Co

u-I
U,
u-I
u-I
>
F—
C)
UI
U
U
U-I

400
N100 OR N10
The Transient Response of Heat Exchangers 65

3 Solutions for 18 transient-response problems are provided in papers by Cima


and London [1]; London, Biancardi, and Mitchell [2]; London, Sampsell, and
The Transient Response of McGowan [3]; and Rizika [4]. These 18 problems are described schematically in the
five illustrations of Fig. 3-2. Some of these sketches describe several problems; for
instance, Fig. 3-2a serves for two direct-transfer-type exchanger problems and also
Heat Exchangers for two periodic-flow-type exchanger problems. A detailed description of each prob
lem is given in Table 3-1, Summary of Solutions.
Each of the problems is referenced to the appropriate sketch of Fig. 3-2 by the
notation “(Prob. type)” in the next to last column and to the graphical results by
the notation “[Graph. results].” The second and third columns describe the fixed and
partially restricted parameters, which in some degree characterize the problem. The
unrestricted parameters are given in the fourth column. These are the independent
coordinates of the graphs, presenting the transient response as the dependent variable.
Some of these solutions are purely analytical, namely solutions 7 to 10 and 17 and 18
of Table 3-1. The others were derived either from digital-computer finite-difference
calculations from the differential equations (solutions 3 and 4), or from experiments
with an electromechanical analog (solutions 1, 2, 5, 6, and 11 to 16). Techniques of
In a heat exchanger the outlet-fluid temperature response to a change in one of the
dimensional analysis were used to form the nondimensional groupings used to corre
inlet-fluid temperatures is not instantaneous. The lag is influenced by the thermal
late the results in a reasonably compact graphical presentation.
capacitances of the fluids and the solid wall, as well as the resistances to heat transfer.
While 17 solutions apply to the two-fluid heat exchanger, the eighteenth is for
The response behavior of gas-turbine-plant heat exchangers is of particular interest
what might be described either as an insulated duct through which fluid is flowing
to the designer of the fuel-control system, because the shaft power output is influenced
or as a porous cylinder or matrix with flow in the axial direction. The transient re
by the lag introduced by the exchangers. In process plants and air-con4itioning
sponse of the insulated duct may be of direct interest to the designer. The response
systems, as well as power plants, the transient response of the heat exchangers is
of the porous cylinder is of decided interest in heat transfer research, as transient
needed by the controls engineer.
techniques are often used to establish the basic heat transfer characteristics of compact
matrix surfaces [5, 6]. The responses are given for both the solid and the fluid tempera
Fig. 3—1. Schematic descriptians far the transient response af (a) direct—transfer and ti~res, and also for the maximum slope of the response curve. These results are given
(b) periodic—flaw types of counterf law exchangers. graphically in Figs. 3-14 to 3-17 and more accurately in Tables 3-2 and 3-3. Many
ROTATING
MATRIX
of the screen- and sphere-bed-matrix heat transfer characteristics reported in Chap. 7

I
were obtained using the maximum slope solution of Fig. 3-17 and Table 3-3 with the
Gb/Cc
C1, transient technique developed by Locke [5]. The tabular information for solution 18
th,In 5h (WC)h
was obtained from computer programs from several sources (references 5, 7, and 8).

/ 3Rc Cc
Go (Wc)0 E (Mc)~ The Nondimensional Parameters
w
A key requirement in the use of the Summary of Solutions (Table 3-1) and the asso
L_or (Mc~rpm6O) 5,10, ciated graphs is an understanding of the significance of the nondimensional
(a) (b) parameters employed. Because the governing differential-equation and boundary
conditions are available [2], it is possible to formulate an adequate set of nondimen
sional parameters by purely formal methods. In fact, many such sets may be formu
Summary of Solutions lated, each being convertible to the others. The particular parameters selected for
In Fig. 3-1, schematic descriptions are provided for both direct-transfer and periodic- this presentation are considered to have the following advantages: (1) They are
flow types of counterfiow exchangers. The inputs to be considered are step changes readily understandable and nameable; (2) many of them have already been used
in either th, th or ~ in, and the transient response outputs are the changes in te, out and to express the steady-state heat-exchanger performance covered in Chap. 2; (3) the
th, outS The flow stream and matrix capaci~y rates C~, Ch, and Cr are described, along independent parameters are readily controlled; that is, one may be varied while the
with the capacitances C,~, and Cr. others are kept constant for analog or computer-program experimentation.
66 Compact Heat Exchangers
INPUT
at 0=0—

C. STEP
0
CHANGE
IN
Fig. 3—2. Description of the problems under consideration in th th in
terms of input and response. (a) Regenerators, di
rect—transfer, and periodic—flow types; (b), (c), (d), at e=o+
intercoolers and pre—coolers; (e) the insulated duct.

RESPONSE
th, ~ c/(0)
= CONSTANT

0 X~ 1
Cc)
th

tc
R*om, Cmjn/Cm~x=O
INPUT Ch reduced to 0 at 0= 0
RESPONSE 1
th, out= ~(0)

tw(=th at 0—0)
tw
tc
0 X*=X/L
(a)
;3~0~}RE~ONSE

t~ =t~, at 0=om I (ALSO t,~ = ~(0)


~ atX~’=1)
th in
0 X*
Cm o ‘I Cd)
‘I
// I
/ I
/
th

tc

tw INPUT t~and RESPONSES

RESPONSE[~ — INP
;~ tf
at 0=0
I tfatO=O
UT IN t~
th,O~t4~(0) I STEP CHANGE I I I
STEP I tf — t~= ~(0)
CHANGE I — — — t~=4~(0)
IN —--I
~Itcat0=O-~ tf,j~ I — ~ atX~=1
0 x* I — —--a
—~ t~and
~
(b) at 0=0÷ tf at 0n.n

0 X* 1
Ce)

67
68 Compact Heat Exchangers The Transient Response of Heat Exchangers 69

Table 3-1. Summary of Solutions Table 3-1. Summary of Solutions (continued)


Independent parameters Figure refs. Independent parameters Figure refs.
Literature
Solution Literature (Prob. type) references
Partially (Proh. type) references Solution Partially Unrestricted [Graph. results]
Fixed Unrestricted [Graph. results] Fixed
restricted restricted

= 1 Cit> 100 6*, N5,,, 6, R* (Direct-transfer e7~ Fig. 3-2a) 1,2, 3


°max [Fig. 3-3] 12 -~~- = 0 6~, Cit (Direct-transfer Fig. 3-2b) 2
Cmax [Fig. 3-9]
x~ = 1 R* = 1
Ni,, =3
2 -~~- = I Cit> 100 6*, Nt0, 6(7 (Direct-transfer e~i Fig. 3-2a) 3 x~ = 0
Cmax 1?R*?4 [Fig.3-3]
x~ = 0
Cmin
13 = 0 6*, Rt (Direct-transfer Fig. 3-21) 2
3 = 1 C7> 100 6(7, N50,5, 6,7, R~ (Periodic-flow ef,2 Fig. 3-2a) 3 [Fig. 3-10]
Cmax [Figs. 3-4, 3-5] C,~ 20
=

x~ = 1 N50 =3
x~ = 0
= I C7> 100 6(7, N50, 5, 6*a (Periodic-flow e7i Fig. 3-2a) 3
Cmax +?R*?4 [Fig.3-4] 14 -~~- = 0 C~ 5 20 6~, Nw (Direct-transfer Fig. 3-2c) 2
x~ = 0 Cmax [Fig. 3-11]
2 ~ C7? 20 R* = 1
x~ = 0
-~Eaa = 1 6*, Nt,,, C~t (Direct-transfer e7s Fig. 3-2a)
Cmax [Fig. 3-3] 15 ~ = 0 6~, C~ (Direct-transfer Fig. 3-2c) 2
R* = 1 Cmax [Fig. 3-12]
6 = 1 R* = 1
x~ = 1 N~ = 1
x~ = 0
6 ~ = 1 6*, N50 (Direct-transfer s~ 2 Fig. 3-2a)
Cmax [Fig. 3-3] 16 -~~- = 0 C~ 5 20 6*, R~ (Direct-transfer Fig. 3-2c) 2
C;~ 0 Cmax [Fig. 3-13]
6 = 1 N~ =
x~ = 1 • x~=0

Gnun — 0 6*? 1 N50, Cit, R* (Direct-transfer Fig. 3-2b) 2, 4 17 -~Eai~ = 0 6~, N~, CZ (Direct-transfer Fig. 3-2d) 2
~ — [Fig. 3-6] Cmax [Figs. 3-14—3-16]
x~ = 0 R*=co
r = 1
8 °mio
fJ=~ = 0 6*, N50, C4 (Direct-transfer
[Fig. 3-7] Fig. 3-21) 2
18 x~ = 1 6~, Na,, C (Insulated-duct Fig. 3-2e) 2, 5
R* =
[Figs. 3-14—3-17]
x~ = 0

9 = 0 6*, N50, R* (Direct-transfer Fig. 3-2b) 2


Cmn
[Fig. 3-7] Direct-transfer-type Exchangers
C,~ = 0
x~ = 0 The set of nondimerisional parameters is as follows:

10 -a—--—
Cmj,,
= 0 6*, N50, C~, (Direct-transfer Fig. 3-21) 2 * * * ~(Ntu Cmiii x*, R”, ~ o~ o*) (3-1)
[Fig. 3-7] Umax ~ 51,
R* = 0
X~ = 0
where (1) e~ ~, e~ 2, are the dependent outlet-fluid temperature responses to the step
input of one of the fluid inlet temperatures (see Fig. 3-2a to d).
~ ~== — 0 C(7> 5 6*, Nt0 (Direct-transfer Fig. 3-21) 2
CflThX — [Fig. 3-8] (2) Ni,, = A U/Cmin = l/(Rc + Ris)Croin is the exchanger number of heat transfrr
x~ = 0
units, as used in Chap. 2, a nondimensional expression of exchanger size.
(3) Cmin/Cmax is the capaci~y-rate ratio of the two fluids, as used in Chap. 2. If
C~ < Ch, the capacity-rate ratio is CC/Ch; otherwise it is Ch/Ce.

I
70 Compact Heat Exchangers The Transient Response of Heat Exchangers 71

(4) x” expresses the position in the exchanger. For this consideration x” = 0 are of primary interest as they correspond to the fluid outlet sections (see
or 1, corresponding to the fluid outlet sections. Fig. 3-2a).
(5) R* = (R on Cmffi side)/(R on Cmax side) is the heat transfer resistance ratio (5) R* is RC/Rh if the step input is on th,jn, or it is Rh/Re if the step input is on
(see Fig. 3-1). m~ R’~’ is the heat transfer resistance ratio.
(6) C = Cw/C,njn is the wall-capacitance parameter. (6) C,~ = Cr/Cmmn is the rotor capaciçy-rate ratio (as used in Chap. 2) or the matrix-
(7) O~’ = (Oa for the Cmffi fluid)/(Oa for the Cmn fluid) is the dwell-time ratio or switch ing capaciçy-rate ratio for a valved periodic-flow exchanger. (See Fig.
exchanger residence-time ratio for the two fluids. 2-6 for a description of the rotary and valved types of periodic-flow
(8) 0* = O/(O~ for the Cmjn fluid) is the generalized time parameter. exchangers.)
(7) 0 = (Oci for the Cmmn fluid)/(Oa for the Cmax fluid) is the dwell-time ratio, or
In forming 4;
the fluid- temperature change from the initial temperature is exchanger residence-time ratio for the two fluids.
normalized with respect to the ultimate change at time equal infinity. Thus e7is zero (8) Or/Oa,min = (rotor period)/(Oa for the Ca fluid) is the nondimensional
at the initial instant and tends towards unity as time increases. 4;
i denotes the re rotor period.
sponse on leaving the exchanger of that fluid which had the step input imposed on it (9) O~ = O/Or is the generalized time parameter.
at entrance to the exchanger; while 4;
2 denotes the response of the other fluid on
As for the direct-type exchanger, e7, 1 and e7, 2 are normalized-fluid outlet re
leaving the exchanger (see Fig. 3-2a). When it is obvious that the response of only
sponses that have magnitudes of zero initially and tend towards unity for large times.
one of the fluids is of interest, the subscript 1 or 2 is omitted, as in Fig. 3-2b to d.
It is to be noted that Nt~, Cmin/Cmax, x”, and R* should all appear in a complete 4;, ~ is the response of that fluid leaving the exchanger which had imposed on it the
solution for steady-state behavior. While x~ and R* do not appear explicitly in the
step input on entering the exchanger, while 4;,
2 denotes the response of the other
fluid. (See Fig. 3-2a for an example in which the step input is imposed on the hot
Chap. 2 solutions, implicitly x” = 0 or 1, and R* would enter if the heat-exchanger
fluid. The definitions, however, are general enough to apply to the other situation,
surface temperature was required.
in which the step input is imposed on the cold fluid.)
For the solutions in hand, Cmffi/Cmax is specialized to be either unity (solutions
Note that the dependent response e7 and the independent parameters ~ o,
1, 2, 5, and 6 of Table 3-1) or zero (solutions 7 to 17 of Table 3-1). Thus, with
Cmmn/Cmax, x”, R “, and 0 have their counterparts in Eq. (3-1) for the direct-trans
= 0 or 1, Eq. (3-1) reduces to
fer-type exchanger. Further, the counterpart of C1~ in Eq. (3-1) is matched by the
* * *4~(Ntu, P* C,;tO,tO*)
et,1,et,2,eI — (3-2) combination, from Eq. (3-3),

Further reduction in the number of independent parameters is achieved either by Or


—*
specification of fixed magnitudes (for example, C,,, = 0, Ud = 1, as in solution 6 of 0d,min Ca
Table 3-1) or by partially restricting the range (for example, C,> 100, i~ R~ ~ 4, * The generalized time parameters 0* of Eq. (3-1) and O~ of Eq. (3-3) are related by
as in solution 2 of Table 3-1).
0* 0 O/Oa,mmn 0*
Periodic-flow-type Exchanger = 0r = Or/Oci, nun = Or/Od, mm

This set of nondimensional parameters in a considerable degree parallels the set All the independent parameters of Eq. (3-3), exclusive of the generalized time
just described for the direct-transfer exchanger: O~, would appear in a complete steady-state solution for the periodic-flow exchanger.
The steady-state solutions of Chap. 2 do include x” = 1 or 0 implicitly and would
* *
=
Cmin x*,R*
~Q~uo ,-7;----—, ,
~*~*
r, ci,
Or o~~) (3-3) include R* if the solutions were complete enough to account for matrix temperatures.
Umax ccl, mm
Matrix-temperature envelopes are considered by Mondt [9].
* *
where (1) Cf 1, e1,2 are the dependent fluid temperature responses to the step input (see For periodic-flow-type exchanger solutions 3 and 4 of Table 3-1, Cmmn/Cmax = 1
Fig. 3-2a). The instantaneous fluid temperature is the average over the and x” = 0 or 1 are specified as fixed. Furthermore, O~ and Or/Oci, mm turn out to be
flow cross section at an instant. not significant for
(2) Nt~, o = 1/[(R~ + Rh)Cmmn] is the modified number of transfer units for the ex
changer (as used in Chap. 2), a nondimensional expression of exchanger Oci mm
size.
an imposed partial restriction on the solutions. Consequently, Eq. (3-3) is reduced
(3) Cmmn/Cmax is the capaci4y-rate ratio of the two fluids, as used in Chap. 2. If
substantially to
Cc < Ch, Cmin/Cmax = Cc/Ch.
(4) x” expresses the position in the exchanger. The magnitudes of x~’ = 0 and 1 e~’,i, 4;,2 = F(Ntu , 0, ~* C~, O~) (3-4)
The Transient Response of Heat Exchangers 73
72 Compact Heat Exchangers

by a standard technique known as Duhamel’s method; this procedure is illustrated


Insulated Duct
in reference 2. The controls engineer may be interested in the frequency response, the
For solutions 17 and 18 of Table 3-1, the set of nondimensional parameters is amplitude and phase angle of the outlet response due to a fixed-frequency-sine-wave
as follows: periodic input. This information as a function of frequency can be extracted from
= ~NNt U, JS*
1-’W~ 0’~I (3-5) the transient responses reported here by several standard techniques [10].

where (1) e7 and e~ are the fluid and wall temperature responses, respectively, at the
fluid outlet section. Illustrative Example
(2) Ne,, = hA/C is the number of heat transfer units. In Table 3-4, a 75 per cent effective direct-transfer regenerator is compared to a
(3) Cj = Cm/C = C~/CO~ is the wall-capacitance parameter. 91 per cent effective periodic-flow-type unit. These design effectivenesses are con
(4) 0* = O/O~ is the generalized time parameter. sidered to be typical in practical gas-turbine-plant applications.
As for the two-fluid exchangers of the direct-transfer and periodic-flow types, It is worth noting that the e~’, ~ response is of lesser importance than 72 for
and e~ are normalized responses that have an initial magnitude of zero and tend high-effectiveness exchangers, as the temperature change associated with e7, 1 is
towards unity for large times. proportional to the steady-state ineffectiveness (1 — e) and is much smaller in magni
These solutions apply to a porous cylindrical matrix heated or cooled by an tude than the temperature change associated with e7, 2, which is proportional to the
axial flow stream, as well as to an insulated duct. Usually the Ntu can be expected steady-state effectiveness e.
to be less than unity for the insulated duct (Fig. 3-14) but may be quite large for the
porous matrix (Figs. 3-15 and 3-16). References
Figure 3-17 provides the maximum slope of the e7 curves of Fig. 3-16.
1. Cima, R. M., and A. L. London: The Transient Response of a Two-fluid Counterfiow Heat Ex
changer—The Gas Turbine Regenerator, Trans. ASME, vol. 80, p. 1169, 1958.
2. London, A. L., F. R. Biancardi, andJ. W. Mitchell: The Transient Response of Gas Turbine Plant
Response to a Flow-rate Change Heat Exchangers—Regenerators, Intercoolers, Precoolers, and Ducting, Trans. ASME, vol. 81,
p. 433, 1959.
To this point attention has been given to an outlet-fluid temperature response due 3. London, A. L., D. F. Sampsell, and J. G. McGowan: The Transient Response of Gas Turbine
to an inlet-fluid temperature step input. Solution 17 of Fig. 3-2d is an exception. Plant Heat Exchangers—Additional Solutions for Regenerators of the Periodic-flow and Direct-
transfer Types, Trans. ASME, vol. 86, p. 127, 1964.
Here it is supposed that Cmax( ~ Cmtn) is suddenly reduced to zero; then the Cmth
4. Rizika, J. W.: Thermal Lags in Flowing Incompressible Fluid Systems Containing Heat Capac
outlet temperature (at x” = 1) and the wall temperature (at x” = 1) will have the itors, Trans. ASME, vol. 78, p. 1407, 1956.
same behavior as for an insulated duct or porous matrix (Figs. 3-14 to 3-16). This is 5. Locke, G. L.: Heat Transfer and Flow Friction Characteristics of Porous Solids, Stanfsrd Unzsersziy
an extreme example of a flow-rate change, and the lag is substantial, being of the Technical Repsrt 10, prepared under contract N6-onr-251 Task Order 6 for the Office of Naval
order Research, June 1, 1950.
6. Coppage, J. E., and A. L. London: Heat Transfer and Flow Friction Characteristics of Porous
090 = (2C~t + fl0a Media, Chem. Eng. Prsg., vol. 52, no. 2, 1956.
7. Vickers, P., and F. A. Creswick: General Motors Tech. Center, private communication,July, 1958.
for a 90 per cent response (from Fig. 3-16 and Nt~ = 3). For a Cmin/Cm~ = 1 ex
8. Howard, C. P.: U.S. Navy Post Graduate School, Monterey, Calif., private communication,
changer, if both flow rates are changed simultaneously, it is equivalent to a step September, 1962.
change in Nt~. Note that Nt~ increases with a reduction in flow. Under these condi 9. Mondt, J. R.: Vehicular Gas Turbine Periodic-flow Heat Exchanger Solid and Fluid Temperature
tions, the wall temperatures do not change greatly, and the lag of the fluid outlet Distributions, Trans. ASME, vol. 86, p. 121, 1964.
temperatures is shown to be small [1], of the order 10. Raven, F. H.: “Automatic Control Engineering,” pp. 345—347, McGraw-Hill Book Company,
New York, 1961.
090

Generally, the lag due to a flow-rate change is substantially smaller than the lag due
to the accompanying inlet-fluid temperature changes.

Response to an Arbitrary Input or a Periodic Input


The governing differential equations for both direct-transfer and periodic-flow types
of regenerators are linear, at least within the usual idealizations [2]. Consequently,
an extension of the e7 results to other than a step input can be accomplished readily
Table 3-2. Insulated Duct or Porous Matrix Solution
Wall temperature response e~, Fluid temperature response e~

Ntux* Ntux*
T*t -~ -.—— —~

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.819 0.670 0.549 0.449 0.368 0.301 0.247 0.202 0.165 0.135
0.5 0.337 0.289 0.247 0.211 0.181 0.154 0.132 0.112 0.096 0.062 0.5 0.885 0.781 0.688 0.604 0.530 0.464 0.406 0.354 0.309 0.369
1.0 0.562 0.499 0.442 0.391 0.346 0.305 0.269 0.237 0.208 0.183 1.0 0.927 0.855 0.785 0.718 0.654 0.594 0.539 0.487 0.439 0.394
1.5 0.712 0.650 0.592 0.538 0.488 0.441 0.399 0.359 0.323 0.290 1.5 0.953 0.904 0.852 0.800 0.748 0.696 0.646 0.597 0.551 0.506
2.0 0.811 0.757 0.705 0.654 0.606 0.559 0.515 0.473 0.433 0.397 2.0 0.970 0.936 0.899 0.859 0.817 0.775 0.731 0.688 0.645 0.604
2.5 0.876 0.833 0.789 0.744 0.700 0.657 0.615 0.574 0.534 0.496 2.5 0.981 0.958 0.931 0.901 0.869 0.834 o.79g 0.761 0.723 0.685
3.0 0.919 0.885 0.850 0.813 0.775 0.737 0.698 0.660 0.622 0.585 3.0 0.988 0.972 0.953 0.931 0.906 0.879 0.849 0.818 0.786 0.753
3.5 0.947 0.922 0.894 0.864 0.833 0.800 0.766 0.732 0.698 0.663 3.5 0.992 0.982 0.968 0.952 0.933 0.912 0.889 0.863 0.836 0.808
4.0 0.966 0.947 0.926 0.902 0.877 0.850 0.821 0.791 0.761 0.730 4.0 0.995 0.988 0.979 0.967 0.953 0.936 0.918 0.898 0.876 0.852
4.5 0.978 0.964 0.948 0.930 0.910 0.888 0.864 0.839 0.813 0.786 4.5 0.997 0.992 0.986 0.977 0.967 0.954 0.940 0.924 0.906 0.887
5.0 0.986 0.976 0.964 0.950 0.934 0.917 0.898 0.877 0.855 0.831 5.0 0.998 0.995 0.990 0.984 0.977 0.967 0.956 0.944 0.930 0.914

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 0.346 0.183 0.094 0.047 0.023 0.011 0.005 0.003 0.001 0.001 0 0.368 0.135 0.050 0.018 0.007 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000
2 0.606 0.397 0.247 0.148 0.086 0.049 0.027 0.015 0.008 0.004 1 0.654 0.394 0.225 0.123 0.066 0.034 0.017 0.009 0.004 0.002
3 0.775 0.585 0.417 0.283 0.185 0.118 0.072 0.043 0.026 0.015 2 0.817 0.604 0.415 0.270 0.169 0.102 0.060 0.034 0.019 0.011
4 0.877 0.730 0.573 0.428 0.307 0.213 0.142 0.093 0.059 0.037 3 0.906 0.753 0.583 0.427 0.298 0.201 0.131 0.082 0.051 0.031
5 0.934 0.831 0.702 0.565 0.436 0.325 0.234 0.163 0.112 0.074 4 0.953 0.852 0.717 0.572 0.435 0.319 0.225 0.153 0.103 0.066
6 0.966 0.898 0.800 0.682 0.559 0.442 0.338 0.251 0.181 0.128 5 0.977 0.914 0.815 0.693 0.564 0.441 0.333 0.243 0.174 0.120
7 0.983 0.940 0.870 0.776 0.667 0.555 0.447 0.349 0.266 0.197 6 0.989 0.951 0.883 0.788 0.676 0.558 0.446 0.344 0.260 0.190
8 0.991 0.966 0.918 0.847 0.757 0.656 0.551 0.450 0.358 0.278 7 0.995 0.973 0.928 0.857 0.766 0.662 0.554 0.449 0.355 0.273
9 0.996 0.981 0.949 0.898 0.827 0.741 0.646 0.548 0.453 0.366 8 0.997 0.985 0.957 0.907 0.837 0.749 0.652 0.550 0.453 0.363
10 0.998 0.989 0.969 0.934 0.880 0.811 0.728 0.638 0.545 0.455 9 0.999 0.992 0.974 0.941 0.888 0.819 0.735 0.643 0.548 0.455
11 0.958 0.919 0.865 0.796 0.717 0.631 0.543 10 0.999 0.996 0.985 0.963 0.926 0.872 0.804 0.723 0.635 0.546
12 0.974 0.946 0.905 0.851 0.784 0.708 0.625 11 0.977 0.951 0.912 0.858 0.790 0.713 0.629
13 0.984 0.965 0.935 0.893 0.838 0.773 0.699 12 0.986 0.969 0.940 0.899 0.844 0.778 0.704

14 0.990 0.978 0.956 0.925 0.881 Q.827 0.763 13 0.992 0.980 0.960 0.930 0.887 0.833 0.768
15 0.994 0.986 0.971 0.948 0.915 0.871 0.817 14 0.995 0.988 0.974 0.952 0.919 0.876 0.822
16 0.997 0.991 0.981 0.965 0.940 0.905 0.861 15 0.997 0.993 0.983 0.968 0.943 0.910 0.866
17 0.998 0.995 0.988 0.976 0.958 0.932 0.896 16 0.998 0.996 0.989 0.979 0.961 0.935 0.901
18 0.999 0.997 0.992 0.984 0.971 0.951 0.924 17 0.999 0.997 0.993 0.986 0.973 0.954 0.927
19 0.999 0.998 0.995 0.990 0.980 0.966 0.945 18 0.998 0.996 0.991 0.982 0.968 0.948
19 0.999 0.998 0.994 0.988 0.978 0.963

12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
~ 0.001 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000
4 0.014 0.005 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 2 0.003 0.001 0.000 0.000
6 0.060 0.026 0.011 0.004 0.002 0.001 0.000 4 0.026 0.010 0.003 0.001 0.000 0.000
8 0.155 0.081 0.039 0.018 0.006 0.003 0.001 0.000 0.000 6 0.095 0.044 0.019 0.008 0.003 0.001 0.000 0.000
10 0.297 0.178 0.099 0.052 0.026 0.012 0.005 0.002 0.001 0.000 8 0.216 0.118 0.060 0.029 0.013 0.006 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.000
12 0.459 0.312 0.196 0.116 0.065 0.034 0.017 0.008 0.004 0.002 10 0.375 0.237 0.139 0.076 0.039 0.019 0.009 0.004 0.002 0.001
14 0.616 0.462 0.324 0.212 0.131 0.077 0.043 0.023 0.012 0.006 12 0.541 0.384 0.254 0.156 0.091 0.050 0.026 0.013 0.006 0.003
16 0.746 0.608 0.464 0.334 0.226 0.145 0.088 0.051 0.028 0.015 14 0.689 0.538 0.392 0.268 0.172 0.104 0.060 0.033 0.017 0.009
18 0.844 0.733 0.602 0.465 0.341 0.237 0.157 0.099 0.059 0.034 16 0.804 0.677 0.535 0.398 0.279 0.185 0.117 0.070 0.040 0.022
20 0.909 0.828 0.721 0.597 0.467 0.350 0.248 0.169 0.109 0.067 18 0.884 0.788 0.667 0.535 0.403 0.289 0.197 0.128 0.079 0.047
22 0.950 0.896 0.815 0.709 0.591 0.469 0.355 0.257 0.178 0.118 20 0.935 0.869 0.774 0.659 0.533 0.408 0.298 0.208 0.138 0.088
24 0.974 0.940 0.883 0.803 0.700 0.587 0.473 0.362 0.265 0.187 22 0.966 0.923 0.855 0.762 0.651 0.531 0.412 0.306 0.218 0.148
26 0.987 0.967 0.930 0.872 0.792 0.694 0.583 0.472 0.367 0.273 24 0.983 0.957 0.912 0.843 0.752 0.645 0.531 0.415 0.313 0.226
28 0.994 0.983 0.960 0.921 0.862 0.782 0.687 0.582 0.473 0.372 26 0.992 0.977 0.949 0.901 0.832 0.743 0.639 0.529 0.418 0.319
30 0.997 0.991 0.978 0.953 0.912 0.852 0.774 0.681 0.579 0.474 28 0.996 0.988 0.972 0.941 0.891 0.822 0.735 0.635 0.529 0.420
32 0.999 0.996 0.988 0.973 0.946 0.903 0.843 0.766 0.675 0.577 30 0.998 0.994 0.985 0.966 0.932 0.882 0.813 0.727 0.630 0.527
34 0.998 0.994 0.985 0.968 0.939 0.895 0.834 0.758 0.670 32 0.999 0.997 0.992 0.981 0.960 0.925 0.873 0.804 0.721 0.626
36 0.999 0.997 0.992 0.982 0.963 0.932 0.887 0.827 0.752 34 0.999 0.996 0.990 0.977 0.954 0.917 0.865 0.796 0.714
38 0.999 0.996 0.990 0.978 0.958 0.926 0.880 0.819 36 0.999 0.998 0.995 0.987 0.973 0.948 0.910 0.857 0.789
40 0.999 0.998 0.995 0.988 0.975 0.953 0.919 0.873 38 0.999 0.997 0.993 0.984 0.968 0.942 0.903 0.849
42 0.999 0.997 0.993 0.985 0.971 0.948 0.913 40 0.999 0.996 0.991 0.981 0.964 0.936 0.896
42 0.999 0.998 0.995 0.989 0.978 0.959 0.931

t T* (9* — x5)(N~~/c:), x~ 1 at exit section.


—:1
Table 3-3. Insulated Duct or Porous Matrix Solution The Transient Response of Heat Exchangers 77
Maximum Time at Maximum Time at
N5~ ~
slope max slope slope max slope

1.0 0.368 0.000 8.0 0.840 0.806


1.25 0.448 0.000 8.5 0.863 0.817
1.5 0.502 0.000 9.0 0.885 0.828
1.75 0.532 0.000 9.5 0.907 0.837
2.0 0.541 0.000 10.0 0.929 0.846
2.5 0.553 0.271 15.0 1.121 0.898 Table 3-4. Illustrative Examples of Gas-turbine-plant Regenerators
3.0 0.577 0.424 20.0 1.284 0.924
3.5 0.604 0.521 25.0 1.432 0.940 Direct- Periodic-
4.0 0.632 0.590 30.0 1.564 0.950 transfer flow
4.5 0.660 0.640 40.0 1.797 0.963
Typical design conditions:
5.0 0.688 0.680 50.0 2.009 0.970 1. Steady-state effectiveness r, % 75 90.9
5.5 0.715 0.711 60.0 2.196 0.974 2. Number of transfer units N5~, N~0,s 3.0 10.0
6.0 0.741 0.737 70.0 2.371 0.977 3. Rotor capacity-rate ratio C~ .. . 10.0
6.5 0.767 0.758 80.0 2.533 0.981 4. Wall-capacitance ratio C,~, C~ 1,500 1,000
7.0 0.792 0.776 90.0 2.683 0.984 5. Resistance ratio R* (cold-to-hQt sides) 2/3 2
7.5 0.816 0.792 6. Rotor period °r, sec . . . 2
7. Dwell time for C~, °d,c, sec 0.1 0.02
ax Response time calculation:
C

Maximum slope
r5

= [ d4
— 1
)]max
1. 0*/Crn for 42 ax 0.90, from Fig. 3-3
2. 0~/C~ for 42 = 0.90, from Fig. 3-4

3.
0*
C~
— 0.40j
r~*

1R~+1i
I, from Fig. 3-3, for 4~ = 0.70
1.2
...

1.04
0.92

0* ~R*_ 11
Time at max slope ro_— 1] [f....1 for 0* ~ 1 4~ R — 0.53 I I from Fig. 3-4 for 41 ax 0.70 . . . 2.32
‘- C~, max slope ~ C~imax slope C~ — 0.6 LR* + ii’
ro* i-I
5. 0.40 I — I —0.08
1R*+ I]
Fig. 3—3. Transient response solutions 1, 2,5, and 6 of Table 3—1. rp* ii
6.0.531 — I ... 0.18
LR* + 1]

1.0 7. 4~ ax 0.90 response times


0~ C~(0*/C,~) 1,800
0.9 0 ax c0~, sec
°d,

0.8 0~ ax C~(0~/C~) .. . 9.2


OaxO,0j~,sec ... [~]
0.7
8. 41 ax 0.70 response times
0.6 0.7 0*/C~ 0.96

* 0.5
0, sec
0.6 *
6f,2 O~/(C~ — 0.6) . . . 2.50
0.4 0, sec . . .

0.3

0.2

0.I

0
78 Compact Heat Exchangers The Transient Response of Heat Exchangers 79

Fig. 3—4. Transient response solutions 3 and 4 of Table 3—1. Fig. 3-6. Transient response solution 7 of Table 3-1: X=O*N EIR*+1 VR*+1+C*\l
tuL~j~)k~ 2R*
e~ic~
8~= 1 ~ Thus, ~74(Q*, ~ R*, C*)
.0

0.9
‘7
0.8

0.7
.6
0.6

* 0.5 *
~f2 ‘.5
0.4

0.3
1.4
0.2

0.1
1.3
0

0
0 .0 2.0 3.0 2

_______
_____ — 0.53 LR*÷ I J
rR*_I1
Cr*_ 0.6
1,1

I0

Fig. 3—5. Transient response solution 3 of Table 3—1. Enlarged abscissa scale for of
Fig. 3-4.

1.0

0.9
.0
0.8
0.9
0.7

~
0.~
0.6 0.7 ____
*

6/~~IC~
0
0.5 0.6

03
0.4

0.3 U
03
~/ //~ ~
0.2
0.2 ~// Z ~
v//
0.1

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
*
0.4
*
0.5 0.6 0.7
0.I

0 ~ —
~

10

15 20 25
Cmn /0

30
0

LIMITED T08~I H
35

eRl x

ii
80 Compact Heat Exchangers The Transient Response of Heat Exchangers 81

Fig. 3—7. Transient response solutions 8,9, and 10 of Table 3—1 Fig. 3—9. Transient response solution 12 of Table 3—1.

10

0.8

0.6

0.6

0.4

0.4

0.2

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4


0 0~
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 .0 1.2 .4 1.6 I +

e* and Q*/(I+)

Fig. 3—8. Transient response solution 11 of Table 3—1. Fig. 3—10. Transient response solution 13 of Table 3—1.

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 (6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 (.2 1.4 1.6

I +

j
The Transient Response of Heat Exchangers 83
82 Compact Heat Exchangers

Fig. 3—13. Transient response solution 16 of Table 3—1.


Fig. 3—11. Transient response solution 14 of Table 3—1.

I I
1.0 ~ ~NALYflCAU — — — - - — — — — . -


— — — —

—p--

08

:Ezz: Cmin/Cmax~0
0.6 ‘~ —

INFLUENCE OF
0,4 ,/ ~,9 STEP CHANGE IN Cmin
/~, FLUID TEMPERATURE

02
/ R*=l
~~20

0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6


0 0.2 0.4 06 0.8 10 1.2 1.4 1.6
— I

I +

Fig. 3—14. Transient response solutions 17 and 18 of Table 3—1. See Table
3—2 for numerical values.

Fig. 3—12. Transient response solution 15 of Table 3—1.

Cf
06

0 0.2 04 0.6 08 1.0 1.2 14 1.6


0*_I
I 4- —*
V.
84 Compact Heat Exchangers The Transient Response of Heat Exchangers 85

Fig. 3—15. Transient response solutions 17 and 18 of Table 3—1. See Table
3—2 for numerical values.

Fig. 3—17. Maximum slope of the transient response ~ of solution 18 of Table 3—1.
See Table 3—3 for numerical values.

TIME FOR MAXIMUM SLOPE


[(0* — l)ICw*] ot roex slope

6
SI
5

Fig. 3—16. Transient response solutions 17 and 18 of Table 3—1. See Table
3—2 for numerical values.

1.5

0.6 1
c.* 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

[d8f*Id (~;i~]
FLUID TEMPERATURE RESPONSE, MAXIMUM SLOPE
The Effects of Temperature-dependent Fluid Properties 87

4 temperature with respect to the wall and mixed mean fluid temperatures (or free-
stream temperature in the case of external flows). For gases, while such a scheme

The Effects of Temperature- dependent can generally be made to work, it often involves a certain awkwardness when applied
to internal flows, such as in a heat exchanger. In an internal flow, one of the least
ambiguous flow parameters is the mass velocity G. It is the product of the mean ve
Fluid Properties locity and mean density, Vp, but more importantly it is simply the mass flow rate
divided by flow cross-sectional area W/A~. In a gas flow where temperature is vary
ing, the density varies everywhere and the mean velocity then varies along the tube.
But G is constant and unambiguously defined regardless of density variation, and
it is thus very convenient to use in defining the Reynolds number, 4rhG/ ji, and the
Stanton number, h/Gcp. However, temperature-dependent property-compensation
schemes based on a reference temperature generally require that G be broken up
into its V and p components, so that p may be evaluated at the reference tempera
ture. For an internal flow, this really involves working with two different densities,
for a mean density must also be evaluated in order to evaluate the mean velocity
from the continuity equation. It is submitted that such a scheme is both awkward
and subject to ambiguous interpretations. Of course, for an external flow (flow over
an airfoil, for example), the possibility of ambiguity is greatly lessened because the
significant velocity is the free-stream velocity which is usually unambiguously de
In the application of basic heat transfer and flow-friction characteristics to heat-
fined regardless of density variations in the boundary layer.
exchanger design where temperature differences between the fluid and the surface
An alternative method of compensation, which is believed to be less subject
are large, consideration must be given to the fact that fluid-transport properties,
to ambiguities, is based on the fact that the pertinent gas properties vary in a sim
viscosity and thermal conductivity, and density may vary considerably with tem
ilar manner with absolute temperature for all gases. Thus all fluid properties can
perature. Such property variations distort both velocity and temperature profiles,
be evaluated at the convenient mixed mean temperature, and the effects of prop
and the question as to what temperature to use in evaluation of the fluid properties erties variation over the flow section can be expressed as a function of the absolute
immediately arises. temperature ratio T~/ Tm. Fortunately, both analysis and experiment indicate that
These problems have been the subject of both analytical and experimental for most cases of interest the temperature-dependent-properties effect at a given ~
investigation, but at the present writing there is no clear agreement in the areas that can be expressed as a simple power of Tw/Tm:
have been covered; nor have all of the technically important areas been investigated.
NNU
In this chapter the authors present their own conclusions based on an examination
of both analytic and experimental evidence. Nun, m
The variable-properties problems for gases and liquids differ substantially. c i7’~m
For gases, thermal conductivity, viscosity, and density all vary with temperature 4-
m m
to a considerable degree. On the other hand, the only liquid property that is highly
temperature-dependent is viscosity, but viscosity typically varies more with tem where it is understood that all fluid properties are to be evaluated at the mixed mean
perature than any of the gas properties. Because of these differences, this chapter fluid temperature, and m and n are exponents that assume various magnitudes for dif
will be subdivided into a section on gases and a section on liquids. In both cases, the ferent flow geometries and flow situations.
concern will be with the effect of the temperature profile at a particular flow cross In Table 4-1, values of n and m are given for various situations, based on the
section. In a final section of the chapter, the effect of the variation of temperature authors’ interpretation of the available experimental data and analytic solutions.
in the direction of flow will be considered. These data are believed applicable for absolute temperature ratios up to about
3.0 or down to 0.33, and for absolute temperatures for which gas dissociation and
chemical reaction do not occur. The experiments cited were carried out primarily
Effect of Gas-property Variations at a with air, but enough included other gases to give some confidence in the generality
Particular Flow Section of the results.

Property-variation effects at a particular flow cross section can usually be compen t Subscript in refers to the constant-property solution evaluated at the mixed mean fluid tem
sated for by evaluating certain or all of the properties at some specified reference perature.
88 Compact Heat Exchangers The Effects of Temperature-dependent Fluid Properties 89

It will be noted in Table 4-1 that only flow through circular tubes is included. long uninterrupted tubes. The necessary corrections, from Table 4-1, have been in
Information on flow through noncircular tubes is sketchy and incomplete, but it is corporated in all the summaries of long-tube behavior presented in Chap. 7. If the
relatively certain that, for turbulent flow, tube geometry has little effect. For laminar analytic solutions in Chap. 6 are used for gas flow, these too should be corrected by
flow, tube shape probably has some effect, but in lieu of better data, it is recom reference to Table 4-1.
mended that the circular-tube results be used. For the turbulent boundary layer
on an external surface, the behavior should differ very little from that for turbulent
flow inside a circular tube. Effect of Liquid-property Variations at a
All properties in the experimental data presented in Chap. 10 have been eval Particular Flow Section
uated at the mixed mean temperature without a correction of the type indicated The only property of importance that varies markedly with temperature for a liquid
here. Since the wall-to-fluid temperature differences in the experiments were al is the viscosity. The two common methods of compensation of viscosity-variation
effects are the use of a reference temperature (the “film average” temperature
scheme), and the method of lumping the effects into a wall-to-mean-fluid-viscosity
Table 4-1. Exponents for (Tw/Tm), Gases
ratio (gw/~tm), with the properties otherwise evaluated at the mixed mean fluid tem
n rn Ref. Basis perature. The latter method will be employed here, primarily because it is more
consistent with the suggested procedure for handling the temperature-dependent-
Laminar boundary layer on
properties problem for gases. Thus the corrections take on the form
flat plate:
Gas heating —0.08 —0.08 1 Analytic solution NN0 —
Gas cooling —0.045 —0.045 1 Analytic solution (4-3)
NNum — ~‘I’m)
Flow normal to circular tube
or bank of circular tubes:
Gas heating 0.0 0.0 2 Heat transfer experiments I = (Ljm (44)
Gas cooling 0.0 0.0 2 Heat transfer experiments fm \I~tm
Fully developed laminar flow
For laminar flow in a circular tube, calculations by Yang [6] for the thermal entry
in circular tube:
Gas beating 0.0 . . . 2, 3 Experiments region for both constant heat rate and constant surface temperature may be very
+0.45t 1, 7 Analytic solution well correlated by n = —0.11 for a wide range of viscosity ratios. Deissler [7] sug
Gas cooling 0.0 2, 3 Experiments
. . .
gests —0.14 on the basis of fttlly developed flow calculations, and this figure has
+0.30t 1, 7 Analytic solution
Fully developed turbulent flow
been extensively used for many years to correlate experimental data both for laminar
in circular tube: flow in tubes and for flow normal to tubes. There are evidently no definitive experi
Gas heating —0.5 . . . 4, 5, 1 Experiments, analysis ments on which to base a choice here, but in any case, the difference is small and
—0.1 4, 1 Experiments, analysis
either figure is probably adequate for design purposes. Deissler’s analysis also yields
Gas cooling 0.0 . . . 3 Experiments
0.0 1 Analytic solution
data for the friction-factor exponent m. The effect is rather substantial; m = 0.58
for liquid heating and 0.50 for liquid cooling correlates the analysis satisfactorily.
t Recent experimental data suggest that these exponents should possibly be considerably greater, There is evidently little experimental confirmation of these results.
on the order of 1.35, but this problem is not yet entirely resolved.
For turbulent flow in a circular tube, Deissler [8] has calculated heat transfer and
flow friction under variable viscosity conditions for a wide range of Prandtl numbers.
ways moderately small, the indicated correction would in most cases be negligible, Although these results are presented in reference-temperature form, when converted
but this would not necessarily be the case in application of the data to large-tem to the viscosity-ratio form the results for m and n are as presented in Table 4-2.
perature-difference heat exchangers. It may be supposed that for very low Prandtl-number turbulent flow (liquid
It is to be noted that most of the test surfaces under consideration are of the metals), the exponents will probably approach something close to laminar-flow
interrupted-fin variety, where the predominant mechanism is heat transfer through magnitudes.
a laminar boundary layer; for this geometry the temperature-dependent-proper
ties effect is very small, since m and n are close to zero. It is therefore recommended
that, for all the interrupted-boundary-layer surfaces, properties should be evaluated Effect of Property Variation in the Flow Direction
at the mixed mean fluid temperature with no additional correction for properties In many applications, temperature (and thus property) variations along the tube in
variation. the flow direction are more pronounced than those occurring over the flow cross sec
Property-variation effects become much more significant for flow through tion. Analysis of typical cases for gases indicates that if the absolute temperature
90 Compact Heat Exchangers The Effects of Temperature-dependent Fluid Properties 91

variation is less than two to one from one end of the flow tube to the other, it is ade References
quate to evaluate properties at a mean temperature with respect to flow-tube length. This
1. Kays, W. M.: A Summary of Experiments and Analysis for Gas Flow Heat Transfer and Friction
mean is then also the Tm used to correct for property variation at a flow section, as
in Circular Tubes, Tech. Rept 22, Departmcnt of Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University,
discussed above. For greater temperature variations in the flow direction, it is June 30, 1954.
probably desirable to consider the exchanger in separate sections, in each of which 2. Kays, W. M., and W. B. Nicoll: Laminar Flow Heat Transfer to a Gas with Large Temperature
the temperature variation is not excessive. Differences, Trans. ASME, ser. C, vol. 85, pp. 329—338, 1963.
The evaluation of a correct mean temperature with respect to flow-tube length 3. Nicoll, W. B., and W. M. Kays: The Influence of Temperature Dependent Properties on Gas Flow
Heat Transfer in Circular Tubes, Tech. Rept 43, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Stanford
often leads to some difficulty if very precise results are desired. Analysis of the heat
University, Sept. 1, 1959.
transfer performance of a heat exchanger is not so critical in this respect as is the pres 4. Humble, L. V., W. H. Lowdermilk, and L. G. Desmon: Measurement of Average Heat-transfer
sure drop, which is directly proportional to the mean fluid density. In most cases, and Friction Coefficients for Subsonic Flow of Air in Smooth Tubes at High Surface and Fluid
however, a reasonable estimate is satisfactory. Temperatures, NACA Report 1020, 1951.
The simplest case is that of a counterflow heat exchanger with equal fluid 5. McCarthy, J. R., and H. Wolf: The Heat Transfer Characteristics of Gaseous Hydrogen and
Helium, Rocketdyne Research Report RR-60-12, December, 1960.
capacity rates; the mean fluid temperatures are merely the arithmetic averages of
6. Yang, K. T.: Laminar Forced Convection of Liquids in Tubes with Variable Viscosity, ASME
inflow and outflow temperatures. Where one fluid is at constant temperature, as in Paper 61-WA-166, presented at ASME Annual Meeting, November, 1961.
an evaporator or condenser, or where one capacity rate is very much greater than 7. Deissler, R. G.: Analytical Investigation of Fully Developed Laminar Flow in Tubes with Heat
Transfer with Fluid Properties Variable along the Radius, NACA TN 2410, July, 1951.
8. Deissler, R. G.: Analysis of Turbulent Heat Transfer, Mass Transfer, and Friction in Smooth Tubes
at High Prandtl and Schmidt Numbers, NACA TN 3145, May, 1954.
Table 4-2. Exponents for (P.m/I’m), Liquids

- n m
Npr
Heating Cooling Heating Cooling

Laminar —0.11 —0.11 0.58 0.50


1 —0.20 —0.19 0.09 0.12
3 —0.27 —0.21 0.06 0.09
10 —0.36 —0.22 0.03 0.05
30 —0.39 —0.21 0.00 0.03
100 —0.42 —0.20 —0.04 0.01
1,000 —0.46 —0.20 —0.12 —0.02

the other, the temperature variation of the other fluid will be close to exponential,
provided the heat transfer conductance does not vary markedly with tube length.
Denoting the constant temperature, entering fluid, and leaving fluid temperatures as
teonst, ti, and t2, respectively,

t2 — tl
tmeafl = t~0fl5~ — (4-5)
N~

Where the heat transfer conductance decreases with tube length, as occurs most
importantly with laminar flow, the true mean temperature with respect to tube
length is nearer the fluid exit temperature, and the designer must exercise his judg
ment since exact analysis is very tedious.
The problem of the crossflow heat exchanger is much more complex, because
each flow tube behaves differently. However, the recommendations cited above
should be a satisfactory guide for most applications. At the very least, they will pro
vide an estimate of the importance of the variable-properties effects.
Abrupt Contraction and Expansion Pressure-loss Coefficients 93

5 up of two parts, which have been arbitrarily separated as follows: The first is the
pressure drop which would occur due to flow-area change alone, without friction.
The second is the pressure loss due to the irreversible free expansion that always
Abrupt Contraction and Expansion follows the abrupt contraction, which arises from boundary-layer separation (as
characterized by the vena contracta), and the consequent pressure change due to
change of momentum rate associated with changes in velocity profile downstream
Pressure-loss Coefficients
Fig. 5—2. Entrance and exit pressure loss coefficients for a multiple—
circular—tube heat exchanger core with abrupt—contraction
entrance and abrupt—expansion exit.

The typical installation of a compact heat exchanger usually involves a flow contrac
tion at the heat-exchanger core entrance and a flow expansion at the core exit. Often
an abrupt (right-angle) contraction and expansion are used, and these introduce
additional flow-stream pressure drop. The designer is generally interested in the
overall core pressure drop, including any entrance and exit loss, rather than merely
0)
the core friction pressure drop; he thus must be able to predict these additional
-o
C
losses. ~0
C)

Fig. 5—1. Entrance pressure drop and exit pressure


rise in a heat exchanger core.
1 a lb

from the vena contracta. Although the principal applications under consideration
This problem has been attacked both analytically and experimentally by Kays
here involve gas flow, density changes in the usual case are sufficiently small that a
[1]. The present chapter is a brief summary of the pertinent conclusions of these ref
constant density treatment is satisfactory. The entrance pressure drop can then be
erences and includes graphs of core entrance and exit pressure-loss coefficients,
expressed as
K~ and K6, that can be used for heat-exchanger design.
= V2 (1 — a2) +
Figure 5-1 shows the entrance pressure drop and the exit pressure rise charac (5-1)
teristic of flow through a heat-exchanger core. The entrance pressure drop is made p 2g~
94 Compact Heat Exchangers Abrupt Contraction and Expansion Pressure-loss Coefficients 95

where V is the velocity in the smaller tube (or tubes), i.e., inside the heat-exchanger K~ and I~e are functions of the contraction and expansion geometry and, in some
core, and a is the core free-flow/frontal-area ratio. The irreversible component of the cases, of the Reynolds number in the tubes. The latter dependence arises from the
pressure drop is contained in the abrupt contraction, or entrance, coefficient K~. influence of the velocity profile in the tubes on the momentum rates and from the
The exit pressure rise is similarly broken into two parts. The first is the pressure resulting effect on the change of momentum at the entrance and exit. These coeffi
rise which would occur due to area change alone, without friction, and is identical cients have been established analytically for a number of simple entrance and exit
to the corresponding term in the entrance pressure drop. The second is the pressure geometries (reference 1) and are presented graphically in Figs. 5-2 to 5-5.

Fig. 5—3. Entrance and exit pressure loss coefficients for a multiple— Fig. 5—4. Entrance and exit pressure loss coefficients for a multiple—
tube flat—duct heat exchanger care with abrupt—contraction square—tube heat exchanger core with abrupt—contraction
entrance and abrupt—expansion exit. entrance and abrupt—expansion exit.

a) a)
-o -o
C C
‘a ‘a
C) C)

loss associated with the irreversible free expansion and momentum changes follow Sufficient experimental confirmation is contained in reference 1 to establish the
ing an abrupt expansion, and this term in the present case subtracts from the other. validity of the analysis.
Thus ~ V2 ‘~ V2 The coefficients have been evaluated on the assumption of essentially uniform
= —(1 — a2) — Ke (5-2) velocity in the large duct leading to the core, of uniform velocity in the leaving duct,
p 2gc 2g~
jut of a fully established velocity profile in the small tubes of the core. This assump
where ‘~e is the abrupt expansion, or exit, coefficient. don is generally justified in heat-exchanger core analysis because the Reynolds num

I.
96 Compact Heat Exchangers Abrupt Contraction and Expansion Pressure-loss Coefficients 97

ber in the core tubes is invariably many times smaller than that in the entering and others have been worked out only for the case of tubes of sufficient length so that there
leaving ducts. It is only at low Reynolds numbers that velocity profile has any appre is an essentially fully established velocity profile at the tube exit. A less than fully
ciable influence. In applying the data, however, it should be remembered that the established velocity profile will result in entrance coefficients K~ that are lower, and
coefficients already include pressure change associated with change of velocity profile. exit coefficients Ke that are higher, than those obtained for the frilly established con
Thus the core friction factor used in Eq. (2-22) to evaluate the overall pressure drop should be dition. Interrupted-fin surfaces, and this includes a large portion of the surfaces
defined on the basis of mean wall shear and not on the basis of overall pressure drop, as is considered here, never have velocity profiles that approach the fully established
profiles of long uninterrupted tubes, because the very purpose of the fin interruption
is to break up the profile. For such surfaces with very frequent fin interruptions, the
Fig. 5—5. Entrance and exit pressure loss coefficients for a multiple—
triangular—tube heat exchanger core with abrupt— K~ and Ks curves for NR = cc should be used, and it will be noted that the NR = 00
contraction entrance and abrupt—expansion exit. curves in Figs. 5-3 to 5-5 are all identical. There will, of course, be interrupted-fin
surfaces where a partial profile is established, and the designer can only rely on his
judgment. However, it should be noted that the entrance and exit pressure losses in
heat exchangers using interrupted-fin surfaces do not contribute greatly to the overall
exchanger pressure drop, as is illustrated by the examples of Appendix B. Thus the
curves of Figs. 5-2 to 5-5 provide the designer with estimates of entrance and exit
pressure-drop data which are usually adequate for design purposes.
For flow over banks of either bare or finned tubes, each tube row consists of a
contraction and an expansion, and the friction behavior of the first and last tube rows
in the core is not materially different from interior tube rows. Thus the entrance and
exit behavior is in effect already taken into consideration in the core friction factors,
and the entrance and exit loss coefficients K~ and K5 are then zero. This consideration
also applies to théfi?àtrix surfaces—sphere-bed, crossed-rod, and woven-wire screens.

a,
-a
References
Ca
0 1. Kays, W. M.: Loss Coefficients for Abnipt Changes in Flow Cross Section with Low Reynolds
Number Flow in Single and Multiple Tube Systems, Tech. Rept 9, Department of Mechanical
Engineering, Stanford University, Jan. 1, 1950; Trans. ASME, vol. 72, pp. 1067—1074, 1950.

sometimes done. All the friction factors contained in this book are defined in this
manner, unless otherwise specified. This distinction becomes of particular importance
when evaluating pressure drop with laminar flow in the core tubes.
Since Figs. 5-2 to 5-5 cover only a few of the simplest geometries, the designer
must exercise judgment in the application of these results. In particular, the only
case that is rigorously applicable to very short tubes is that of circular tubes. The

I
Analytic Solutions for Flow in Tubes 99

6 periphery. Finally, the solution of Reynolds [1] is presented for a circular tube with
constant heat rate per unit of tube length, but with a cosine heat-flux variation around
the periphery.
Analytic Solutions for Figures 6-2 and 6-3 give the corresponding solutions for the complete family of
rectangular tubes [21. Again, temperature is always constant around the tube
Flow in Tubes periphery.
Figure 6-4 gives the frilly developed laminar-flow friction factors for the con
centric circular-tube annulus, where r* is the annulus radius ratio r~/r0, inner radius
over outer radius. In Fig. 6-5 the hilly developed laminar-flow constant-heat-rate
Nusselt numbers for the annulus are presented for the inner tube when the inner
tube alone is heated, NNu~1, and for the outer tube when the outer tube alone
is heated, NN~,0 [3]. Also presented are influence coefficients Z1 and Z0, which may
be used together with the one-surface-heated Nusselt numbers to calculate Nusselt
numbers on both surfaces for any ratio of heat flux on the two surfaces:

NNu~1
NNu~ (6-1)
1 — (q~/q~’)Z~
This chapter contains, in graphical form, a considerable number of analytic solutions
NNU0.
for both laminar and turbulent flow inside continuous tubes of various cross section— NNU0 = (6-2)
1 — (q~7q~f)Z,,
circular-, rectangular-, triangular-, and concentric circular-tube annuli. The validity
of most of these solutions has been adequately established experimentally, and thus The inner- and outer-tube Nusselt numbers are then related to the heat flux
where there is overlap, there is no serious discrepancy between these data and the on the two surfaces and the surface and fluid mixed mean temperatures as follows:
experimental data in Chap. 10. The data of Chap. 10 cover primarily complex geo
metrical flow configurations for which a completely analytic treatment is impracti q~’= h~(t1 — tm) (63)
~ For applications where long noninterrupted tubes are employed, it is suggested gi’= h0(t0 — tm) (64)
that the reader investigate the solutions presented here before attempting to find
appropriate test data in Chap. 10. It should also be noted that the test data presented NNu~ ~jj NNU0=~2~t (6-5)
in Chap. 10 are largely restricted to the Prandtl-number range of gases, whereas the
analytic solutions presented here cover, with few exceptions, the entire Prandtl t4 is the temperature on the inner tube surface, t0 is the temperature on the outer tube
number spectrum. surface, and tm is the mixed mean fluid temperature. Heat flux is here defined as
The analytic solutions are presented in the following order:
positive inwards to the fluid from the surfaces. Heat flux on either surface may be
1. Fully developed velocity and temperature profiles
either inwards or outwards, positive or negative. The relations and results given hold
a. Laminar flow, various geometries
whether the heat-flux ratio be positive or negative.
b. Turbulent flow, circular-tube and concentric circular-tube annuli In Fig. 6-6 is plotted the Kármán-Nikuradse equation for the friction factor for
2. Thermal entry length, frilly developed velocity profiles hilly developed turbulent flow in a smooth circular tube. Also shown are two simpli
a. Laminar flow, circular-tube and concentric circular-tube annuli
fied equations which may be used where simplicity of an algebraic equation is desired.
b. Turbulent flow, circular-tube Turbulent-flow friction factors in noncircular tubes that do not involve sharp corners
3. Combined thermal and hydrodynamic entry length laminar flow, circular-tube
with very acute angles differ very little from the circular tube.
In all the solutions presented, the length dimension in the Nusselt number and The complete, fully developed, turbulent-flow, heat transfer behavior for a
the Reynolds number is the hydraulic diameter, defined by Eq. (1-5). circular tube with constant heat rate per unit of tube length is shown in Fig. 6-7.
In Fig. 6-1, Nusselt numbers and friction factors are presented for hydrodynam These curves, as calculated by Leung [4], are the result of a single consistent analytical
ically and thermally fully developed flow in a number of tubes of simple geometry. procedure, based on what is believed to be the best available information on turbulent
The Nusselt numbers are presented for the two heating conditions for which a fully eddy diffusivity. At high Prandtl numbers, the results are virtually identical with
developed temperature profile is possible: constant heat rate per unit of tube length the calculations of Deissler [5], while at low Prandtl numbers, they are close to the
®, and constant surface temperature 0.
The triangular- and rectangular-tube
results are also restricted to a constant surface temperature around the tube
results of Sleicher and Tribus [6]. In the gas range, they agree very well with
experiments.
100 Compact Heat Exchangers Analytic Solutions for Flow in Tubes 101

The ratio of the Nusselt number for constant heat rate to the Nusselt number This friction factor takes into consideration pressure drop due to increased axial
for constant surface temperature is plotted in Fig. 6-8 from the calculations of Sleicher momentum flux accompanying the development of the velocity profile. f and ]~,,,
and Tribus [6]. Note that for turbulent flow it is only at very low Prandtl numbers can be evaluated from one another if the change of momentum flux can be evaluated.
that there is a significant difference. A momentum-flux correction factor ~ is plotted in Fig. 6-22 and can be used to
Figure 6-9 is a plot of the fully developed, turbulent-flow, constant-heat-rate evaluate total momentum flux at any flow section; K~ relates the actual momentum
Nusselt numbers for flow between parallel planes with one wall insulated [4]. The flux to that which would be evaluated from the mean velocity.
corresponding influence coefficients are given in Fig. 6-10. These data can be used
directly in Eq. (6-1) or (6-2) to calculate asymmetric heating. Momentum flow rate = K4(A~G) —p- (6-7)
g~p
Figures 6-1 1 to 6-13, from the calculations of Leung [4], give the complete, fully
developed, turbulent-flow, constant-heat-rate performance for a concentric circular- In Fig. 6-23 are plotted three laminar-flow heat transfer solutions for combined
tube annulus with radius ratio 0.20. These results may be used in Eqs. (6-1) and (6-2) hydrodynamic and thermal entry length for a circular tube [12], i.e., both velocity
to calculate asymmetric heating in the annulus for any heat-flux ratio. Since the and temperature uniform at x = 0. These results were calculated for a fluid with
parallel planes and the circular tube (outer tube only) are also members of the Npr = 0.7 and are thus restricted to the gas Prandtl-number range. At high Prandtl
annulus family, sufficient results are presented to make reasonable estimates by inter numbers, the velocity profile develops much more rapidly than the temperature
polation for any annulus radius ratio. To further assist in interpolation, Figs. 6-14 and profile, and the previous results for thermal entry length with fully developed ve
6-15 are presented. locity profile are generally a good approximation. At low Prandtl numbers, the
The solutions for thermal entry length, but with hydrodynamically fully devel reverse is the case. The constant-temperature-difference solution is presented be
oped flow, start with Fig. 6-16. These solutions are all based on fluid temperature cause this approximates the situation in a counterfiow heat exchanger with equal
uniform over the flow cross section at x = 0, the point where heat transfer starts. capacity rates. Figure 6-24 gives the mean Nusselt numbers, while Fig. 6-23 gives
Figure 6-16 gives the constant-surface-temperature results of Sellars, Tribus, and the local Nusselt numbers.
Klein [7]. Both the local Nusselt number NNu~ and the mean Nusselt number with Calculations have been made for the combined hydrodynamic and thermal
respect to tube length NNUm are plotted for laminar flow in a circular tube. entry length for turbulent flow in a tube. However, it is the opinion of the authors
In Fig. 6-17 the constant-heat-rate laminar-flow solutions for circular tubes [8] that such solutions are of very limited utility and can be positively misleading. If
and flow between parallel planes [3] are presented. The Nusselt number is the local a tube has a nozzle entrance, a laminar boundary layer will tend to develop,
Nusselt number, which is the only Nusselt number of any useflil significance in con followed by a transition to turbulent flow with entirely different heat transfer
stant-heat-rate applications. The parallel planes results include the influence coeffi characteristics than would be the case when a turbulent boundary layer develops
cients so that asymmetric heating problems can be handled. Again, Eqs. (6-1) and from the tube entrance, as is assumed in all such analyses. If the tube has a square
(6-2) are applicable. or other sharp-cornered entrance which causes boundary-layer separation at the
The laminar-flow constant-heat-rate solutions for two annulus radius ratios, entrance, the turbulence generated causes much greater heat transfer rates in the
from the analysis of Lundberg [3], are given in Fig. 6-18. Again, Eqs. (6-1) and (6-2) entry region than would be calculated on the basis of a developing turbulent
are applicable. boundary layer. In Chap. 7, performance curves based on experimental data are
Figures 6-19 to 6-21 show the calculated thermal-entry-length performance for presented for several types of tubes with sharp-cornered entrances, and these are
turbulent flow in a circular tube with constant heat rate per unit of tube length. The believed to be much more useful and accurate for heat-exchanger design than the
Npr = 0.7, 10.0 results are based on the analysis of Sparrow, Hallman, and Siegel available analytic solutions.
[9], while the Np~ = 0.01 results are based on Kays and Nicoll [10]. The correspond
ing results for constant surface temperature differ little from these.
Figure 6-22 shows the friction factors for the hydrodynamic entry length of a
References
circular tube, based on the analysis of Langhaar [11]. Velocity is assumed uniform l,~ Reynolds, W. C.: Heat Transfer to Fully Developed Laminar Flow in a Circular Tube with Arbi
over the flow cross section at x = 0. Three friction factors are plotted: J is the local V trary Circumferential Heat Flux, Trans. ASME vol. 82, ser. C, p. 108, 1960.

friction factor, defined on the basis of local wall shear stress; f is the mean friction 2. Clark, S. H., and W. M. Kays: Laminar-flow Forced Convection in Rectangular Tubes, Trans.
ASME, vol. 75, pp. 859—866, 1953.
factor from 0 to x, defined on the basis of mean shear stress over the same length; 3. Lundberg, R. E., W. C. Reynolds, and W. M. Kays: Heat Transfer with Laminar Flow in Con
J~ is the apparent mean friction factor, defined on the basis of total pressure drop centric Annuli with Constant and Variable Wall Temperature and Heat Flux, Report
from 0 to x, as follows: No. AHT-2, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University, Sept. 1, 1961.
4. Leung, E. Y., W. C. Reynolds, and W. M. Kays: Heat Transfer with Turbulent Flow in Concen
(6-6) tric and Eccentric Annuli with Constant and Variable Heat Flux, Rept AHT-4, Department
2gcp r/~ of Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University, Apr. 15, 1962.
102 Compact Heat Exchangers Analytic Solutions for Flow in Tubes 103

5. Deissler, R. C.: Analysis of Turbulent Heat Transfer, Mass Transfer, and Friction in Smooth
Tubes at High Prandtl and Schmidt Numbers, NACA TN 3145, May, 1954.
6. Sleicber, C. A., and M. Tribus: “Heat Transfer in a Pipe with Turbulent Flow and Arbitrary Wall-
temperature Distribution,” pp. 59—78, Heat Transfer and Fluid Mechanics Institute, 1956.
7. Sellars, J. R., M. Tribus, andJ. S. Klein: Heat Transfer to Laminar Flow in a Round Tube or Flat
Conduit—The Graetz Problem Extended, Trans. ASME vol. 78, pp. 441—448, 1956.
8. Siegel, R., E. M. Sparrow, and T. M. Hallman: Steady Laminar Heat Transfer in a Circular Tube Fig. 6—1. Laminar—flow heat transfer and friction solutions for fully developed velocity
with Prescribed Wall Heat Flux, AppL Sci. Res. Sec. A, vol. 7, p. 386, 1958. and temperature profiles.
9. Sparrow, E. M., T. M. Hallman, and R. Siegel: Turbulent Heat Transfer in the Thermal
Entrance Region of a Pipe with Uniform Heat Flux, AppL Sd. Res. Sec. A, vol. 7, p. 37, 1957.
10. Kays, W. M., and W. B. Nicoll: The Influence of Non-uniform Heat Flux on the Convection
Conductances in a Nuclear Reactor, Tech. Refit 33, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Stan
GEOMETRY NN, ® NNU ~ fN5 NNU, ® Ns~ ® N~,
(L/4rh> 100) N Nu, 0
ford University, Nov. 1, 1957.
11. Langhaar, H. L.: Steady Flow in the Transition Length of a Straight Tube, J. AppL Mech.,
June, 1942.
12. Kays, W. M.: Numerical Solutions for Laminar Flow Heat Transfer in Circular Tubes, Trans. ~ 3.00 2.35 13.33 1.28 0.225
ASME, vol. 77, p. 1265, 1955.

a~ —=1 3.63 2.89 14.2 1.26 0.256


a

Q 4.364 3.66 16 1.19 0.273

s~___________ .~=4 5.35 4.65 18.3 1.15 0.292

aj I ~=8 6.5 5.95 20.5 1.09 0.316


b

P.~ 8.235 7.54 24 1.09 0.342


a

~ 5.385 4.86 2” 1.10 0.224


a
~
~//////////////

0 If q~(0)=q’,’(1+b cos 0)

“ NNU®(O)=/ssb)
qo(O)~~ I,jg
(1+bcosO)

4
104 Compact Heat Exchangers Analytic Solutions for Flow in Tubes 105

Fig. 6—2. Friction factors for fully developed laminar


flow in rectangular tubes.

25.0 —

24.0

23.0

22.0 *h
cx’~-~ 1.0

20. \ I
19.0 Fig. 6—4. Friction factors for fully developed laminar flow in concentric—
8.0
(fN~

\
-4 -~ -
circular—tube annuli.

7 fl \
\
S 24
16.0 ————---—-—-~--~--~— —
~‘.

15.0 N~ 23

22

I4.0~-~~I~:
0.1 0.2 0.3 04 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 .0 21

(fNR)~ 20

19

18

17

Fig. 6—3. Nusselt numbers for laminar flow in rectangular tubes 16


with fully developed velocity and temperature profiles.

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

4
106 Compact Heat Exchangers Analytic Solutions for Flow in Tubes 107

Fig. 6—5. Nusselt numbers and influence coefficients for laminar


flow in concentric—circulor—tube annuli for constont
heot rote per unit of tube length and fully developed
velocity ond temperature profiles.

Fig. 6—6. Friction factors for fully developed turbulent flow in a smooth—walled circular tube.
Turbulent flow friction factors for rectangular and annular tubes do not differ
significantly.

9
0.015

0.010
0.008 __:7
0.006
= 0 04 N
f
0.004

.0.003
KARi~AN-NIKURADSE ~‘ -
EQUATION
0.002

iO~ 10~ 106


NR
Fig. 6—7. Nusselt numbers for turbulent flow in a circular tube
Analytic Solutions for Flow in Tubes 109
with constant heat rate per unit of tube length and
fully developed velocity and temperature profiles.

Fig. 6—9. Nusselt numbers for turbulent flow between parallel planes with
one side insulated, constant heat rate per unit of tube length,
and fully developed velocity and temperature profiles.

NNU

N N~,

io~ io~ 106


NR

Fig. 6—8. Ratio of Nusselt number for constant heat rate to


Nusselt number for constant surface temperature for
fully developed turbulent flow in a circular tube.

1.4
NNU, ®
1.3

1.2

1.1

1.0
i04 iU~ 106
io~ io~
N6 N6

108
110 Compact Heat Exchangers Analytic Solutions for Flow in Tubes 111

Fig. 6—il. Nusselt numbers for turbulent flow in a concentric—circular—


tube annulus of radius ratio 0.20, outer surface insulated, con
stant heat rate per unit of tube length, and fully developed
velocity and temperature profiles.
Fig. 6—10. Influence coefficients for computation of asymmetric heating
for turbulent flow between parallel planes, constant heat
rate per unit of tube length, and fully developed velocity
and temperature profiles.

N N~

0.001
io~ io~ 106
NR

NR
112 Compact Heat Exchangers Analytic Solutions for Flow in Tubes 113

Fig. 6—12. Nusselt numbers for turbulent flow in o concentric—circular—


tube annulus of radius ratio 0.20, inner surface insulated, con Fig. 6—13. Influence coefficients for computation of asymmetric heating
stant heat rate per unit of tube length, and fully developed for turbulent flow in a concentric—circular—tube annulus of
velocity and temperature profiles. radius ratio 0.20, constant heat rate per unit of tube length,
and fully developed velocity and temperature profiles.

N Nu

io4 io5 106

io4 106

j
114 Compact Heat Exchangers Fig. 6—16. Thermal—entry—length Nusselt numbers far laminar flaw in a circular tube with
constant surface temperature and fully developed velocity profile.

U)
ED C U) ‘4-
o 0 -o 0
± 0~
U) ~ D U)
~ 0 ~ D
D ~ ~
NN~
Z~2 ~
CD 0
g .~ ~

U) II
~ •~5 .~ 0~
2 o~•~ 15~ g
~
0CC
U) U)
0
0 0
U) 0
5-
s.-. D 0
..-

•5-
£
0
>..d~
±0
o 0
.2cD~
EE~E~E
o ~ c 0 U) 0
.5- C .— 0 >~
U) ~
~.- c 0~
Ui 0 s. 0

C’~ ~ N ~D
~
C.’)
0.002 0.004 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.20 0.40 0.60
0)
4-4 o 0 0 d
U- 2(X/D)
NRNPr

Fig. 6—17. Thermal—entry—length local Nusselt numbers and influence coefficients for laminar
flow in a circular tube and flow between parallel planes with one side insulated,
constant heat rate and fully developed velocity profiles.

C >-~ 0.8
ED C U)~
D ~ 0 0 a
C ~ ~ ~ 0.6
.4- _o —
~0 D -s
U) U)
~, 0.4
D o~ ~, 5- 0
4-

z15-s0 ~jj1’.~ 0.3


C U) u U) 0~0
o .~ .- E
() 0 U) 02
I ~- ..-

~ .~ .~ -~ ~; N N1, z
s., 0
U) U) ~
o 0 C ± ~ 0.1
0
5-
C
U) C
0 ~ 0 o~ R
0.08
_U)-0
D

C
u
.- 0
.4-

U)

~
0.06
‘5- C 0 .—
~ 0~ ~ 0 0.04
0.03
c~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(N r~ 0 0.’ 0 N -C t~
C’.) (N (N -~ -4 ~-1 -4 ~
0.02
0)
U-

0.002 0.004 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.20 0.40 0.60
2(X/D)
NRNpr

115
116 Compact Heat Exchangers Analytic Solutions for Flow in Tubes 117

Fig. 6—19. Thermal—entry—length local Nusselt numbers for tur


bulent flow in a circular tube with constant heat
rate and fully developed velocity profiles, showing
influence of Reynolds number at Np~ = 0.7.
1.20

Fig. 6—18. Thermal entry length local Nusselt numbers and influence coefficients for laminar
flow in concentric—circular—tube annuli with constant heat rate and fully devel
oped velocity profiles.
1.10

1.00
0 10 20 30 40
(X/D)

N Nu z
Fig. 6—20. Thermal—entry—length locol Nusselt numbers for tur
bulent flow in a circular tube with constant heat
rate and fully developed velocity profiles, showing
influence of Reynolds number at Np~ 0.01.

2.0

0.002 0.004 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.20 0.40 0.60
2(X/D)
N RN Pr
NN
1.5

1.0
0 10 20 30 40
(X/D)
118 Compact Heat Exchangers Fig. 6—23. Local Nusselt numbers for the combined hydrodynamic and thermal entry length of a
circular tube, Np~~0.7.

30

Fig. 6—21. Thermal—entry—length local Nusselt numbers for tur


bulent flow in a circular tube with constant heat N Nu,
rate and fully developed velocity profiles, showing
influence of Prandtl number at NR = 100,000. —CONSTANT
HEAT RATE

~
1.30 10

~z_ ~
8
6
5
STA~ -
1.20 ~‘~_
4
N Nu,
NNU~, 3
S UR FACE
TEMPERATURE
1.
2

1.00
20
0.004 0.006 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.20 0.40 0.60
(X/D)
2(X/D)
NR N Pr

Fig. 6—24. Mean Nusselt numbers for the combined hydrodynamic and thermal entry length of a
circular tube, Np~~O.7.
Fig. 6—22. Local, mean, and total apparent friction factors for laminar flow in the hy
drodynamic entry length of a circular tube. The momentum flux correction
factor for the hydrodynamic entry length is also plotted.

N Nu,

0.006 0.01 0.02 0.04 0,06 0.10 0.20 0.40 0.60


2(X/D)
NRNpr

3 119
Experimental Correlations for Simple Geometries 121

7 variation, slightly different performance will be obtained (see Fig. 10-22). These
considerations are not important for the interrupted type of surface but can be
significant for flow in long uninterrupted tubes.
Experimental Correlations for For flow normal to banks of staggered circular tubes, the test data in Chap. 10
are recommended for design for the particular layout patterns tested, and the gen
Simple Geometries eralized data in the present chapter are recommended for interpolation to patterns
that have not been tested. However, even if the direct data of Chap. 10 are employed,
they should be corrected for number of tube rows by Fig. 7-7.
The only direct test data on matrix surfaces presented in Chap. 10 are for flow
through crossed-rod matrices. There is no counterpart in Chap. 10 for the matrix-
surface summary curves presented in this chapter.
Figure 7-1 presents a sununary of both analysis and experiment for gas flow
through circular tubes in the moderate Reynolds-number range. The laminar-
flow curves are based on the data in Chap. 6 for combined hydrodynamic and
thermal entry length, and have been found experimentally to be applicable even
when an abrupt contraction entrance is used. The turbulent-flow data are the
result of a correlation of a large amount of experimental data, including rather
importantly the entry-length data of Boelter, Young, and Iversen [1] for a tube with
In the course of the experimental work leading to the compilation of test data in an abrupt contraction entrance. The Stanton numbers are all averages with re
Chap. 10, sufficient data have been obtained for certain of the simple flow ge spect to tube length, and this can be used directly in the heat-exchanger theory of
ometries to permit a generalized presentation of basic heat transfer and flow-friction Chap. 2. The transition data, in the Reynolds number range 2,500 to 10,000,
performance. In addition, the simple geometries, such as flow through circular and are subject to considerable uncertainty because of the stability nature of the transition
rectangular tubes, have been at least partially handled by analytic means. Thus, by problem. For a single tube these data may be meaningless, but the curves presented
a judicious combination of analytical and experimental data, it is possible to pre represent what is typically obtained for a large number of tubes in parallel, all with
sent a comprehensive treatment of gas flow through circular and rectangular tubes abrupt contraction entrances, as is typical of most circular-tube heat exchangers.
with abrupt contraction entrances, including effects of tube length, type of heating, Some typical direct test data are shown in Fig. 10-1, but the transition region of Fig.
and temperature-dependent fluid properties. Similarly, as a result of the large 7-1 is based not only on Fig. 10-1, but also on the results of several other inves
amount of experimental data obtained for flow normal to staggered banks of cir tigators [2]. As a general rule, one would prefer to design outside this region, but in
cular tubes, a generalized treatment of this particular geometry is possible, which compact-heat-exchanger applications, the Reynolds-number range of interest is
allows interpolation to staggered patterns that have not been tested. Extensive data usually about 500 to 15,000; thus the transition region can hardly be avoided.
have been obtained by various investigators for three common types of matrix sur Even if the design point falls above 10,000, the heat exchanger will operate in the
faces that can be used in periodic-flow heat exchangers. Correlations of experi transition region at part load. These curves should not be used outside the gas
mental data on randomly stacked screen matrices, sphere matrices, and triangular- Prandtl-number range.
tube matrices are presented in this chapter, rather than in Chap. 10, because each Figures 7-2 to 7-4 are based on much the same kinds of considerations as
graph represents a range of geometry, and the curves are based on an interpretation Fig. 7-1, although the analytic basis for the laminar combined hydrodynamic and
of the work of various experimenters. The experimental data presented in Chap. 10 thermal entry-length data is less complete. The rectangular tubes are assumed to
are the direct test results of a particular geometry and a single set of tests, and with be formed by fins extending between plates as in a plate-fin heat exchanger, and
a few exceptions the actual test points are presented. thus the abrupt contraction is essentially a two-dimensional one rather than three-
It is recommended that the generalized curves in this chapter, rather than the dimensionally axially symmetric as for the circular tubes. This results in a less pro
direct test results, be used for beat-exchanger design for gas flow in circular and nounced entry-length effect in the turbulent flow region. An interesting feature of
rectangular tubes, except for those cases where the surface to be us’~d is identical high-aspect-ratio rectangular tubes is that the transition “dip” is less pronounced
with the test surface; this includes length-to-diameter ratio and the type of en than for other shapes; there is thus less uncertainty in designing in this region. An
trance. Even in this case, it should be noted that if the direct test data are used for other more bothersome feature is that if the rectangular tubes are formed by thin
flow in long tubes, a separate correction for temperature-dependent properties fins placed between plates, slight irregularities in the fin spacing can cause a sub
should be made. Also, the test data were practically all obtained with constant wall stantial drop in the apparent heat transfer performance of the overall heat-exchanger
temperature, and if applied to heat exchangers with other types of wall-temperature core. This is due to the unequal flow distribution between fins that results from the
122 Compact Heat Exchangers Experimental Correlations for Simple Geometries 123

higher flow resistance in the smaller passages. Buckling of fins has the same effect. 3. Tong, L. S.: Heat Transfer and Flow Friction Characteristics of Woven-screen and Crossed-rod
Direct test data for a great many plain plate-fin surfaces in which the flow passages Matrices, Trans. ASME, vol. 79, no. 10, 1957.
are close to rectangular will be found in Chap. 10, and comparison of these data with A. L. London, J. W. Mitchell, and W. A. Sutherland: Heat Transfer and Flow-friction Charac
teristics of Crossed-rod Matrices, Trans. ASME~ Ser. C, vol. 82, p. 199, 1960.
the curves of Figs. 7-2 to 7-4 will give an idea of the kind of performance that can
4. Coppage, J. E., and A. L. London: Heat Transfer and Flow Friction Characteristics of Porous
be expected from commercially available plain-fin surfaces. These curves should Media, Chem. Eng. Prsg., vol. 52, no. 2, p. 57-F, 1956.
not be used outside of the gas Prandtl-number range. 5. Denton, W. H., C. H. Robinson, and R. S. Tibbs: The Heat Transfer and Pressure Loss in Fluid
Correlations of heat transfer and friction data for flow normal to banks of cir Flow through Randomly Packed Spheres, HPC-35 June 28, 1949. Available through US AEC
Tech. Information Div., Oak Ridge, Tenn.
cular tubes are presented in Figs. 7-5 to 7-7. These correlations are based entirely
6. Mondt,J. R.: Discussion of Paper No. 14, Intern. Heat Transfer Canf, 1961, Dzscuss?ons Sec., published
on the direct experimental data in Chap. 10 and should be used for interpolation, by ASME, p. D-41.
since the direct data are probably more accurate for the particular tube patterns
tested. The tube-bank data can probably be employed with confidence at moder
ately high Prandtl numbers, although the test data on which the curves are based
were obtained with air. Figure 7-7 shows the effect of a finite number of tube rows
in a tube bank. The correlations in Figs. 7-5 and 7-6 are based on a bank of infinite
extent, and this is also true of most of the direct test data in Chap. 10. Thus Fig. 7-7
should be used in conjunction with both the correlations and the direct data of
Chap. 10. Figure 7-7 should also be used in conjunction with the crossed-rod
matrices in Chap. 10, Figs. 10-90 to 10-92.
The remaining graphs in this chapter are for surfaces of potential use as Fig. 7—1. Gas flow inside circular tubes with abrupt contraction entrances; a summary of experimental
matrices in periodic-flow heat exchangers. Figures 7-8 and 7-9 give correlations of ex and analytical data.
perimental data for flow through randomly stacked woven-wire screens wil±i
various porosities. These correlations have not been included with the direct test
data in Chap. 10 because each curve has been established from tests of wire screens
at the low Reynolds-number end but crossed-rod matrices at the high Reynolds-
number end [3]. The correlation is believed to be valid, but the curves do not repre
sent the direct performance of any one screen matrix. The applicability of these
data outside the gas Prandtl-number range is uncertain.
Figure 7-10 shows a correlation of heat transfer and friction performance for
flow through a matrix formed of randomly stacked spheres, based on the work of
Coppage and London [4] and Denton, Robinson, and Tibbs [5]. Again the applica
bility of these results to Prandtl numbers outside the gas range is uncertain.
Matrix surfaces can be constructed in much the same manner as plate-fin sur
faces, and Fig. 7-11 shows a correlation of the test results by Mondt [6] for matrices
with triangular flow passages. The bulk of the data is in the laminar-flow region,
and the dashed lines in the laminar region are from Fig. 6-1 for an equilateral tri
angle with fully established flow. Single curves represent equally well the perfor
mance of 50 to 900 triangles, and the curves also demonstrate the applicability of
the analytic solutions to a gas in the low Reynolds-number range (<400).

References
1. Boelter, L. M. K., G. Young, and H. W. Iversen: An Investigation of Aircraft Heaters XXVII—
Distribution of Heat Transfer Rate in the Entrance Section of a Circular Tube, NACA TN 1451,
July, 1948.
2. Kays, W. M., and A. L. London: Convection Heat Transfer and Flow Friction Behavior of Small
Cylindrical Tubes—Circular and Rectangular Cross Sections, Trans. ASME vol. 74, no. 7, 1952.
Fig. 7—2. Gas flow inside rectangular tubes with abrupt contraction entrances; a summary of experimental
and analytical data.

Fig. 7—3. Gas flow inside rectangular tubes with abrupt contraction entrances; a summary of experimental
and analytical d&a.
Experimental Correlations for Simple Geometries 127

Fig. 7—5. Gas flow normal to an infinite bank of staggered circular tubes, heat transfer
characteristics; a correlation of experimental data, average conductance
around tube periphery. N5~N~~’3= ChNR°4 300 <NR< 15,000

0.50
0

a)
E X1~i.25
a) 0.40
0~
x ~
a)
0
~ =
>..
0 0.30 Ch
~

E
D
,
0 0 x~a
a)
0.20
~—----~------- 0 0r
u
c
a -~- 0
0 0
:zzz
-~----~~
a)
C
0.10
0
U -~d~*
a
C 1.0 1.5
xt 2.0 25
0
U

D
-a
a

Fig. 7—6. Flow normal to an infinite bank of staggered circular tubes, flow friction char—
a)
-D
D
acteristics; a correlation of experimental data. f= C~1V~°~8
300 <NR< 15,000
a
D
0)
C
a
UO 050
X~LOO,.Z X~O.75
5) -o —
,-

~
>.. 0.40 ~ —

a C X~I.25~

030 ~ a
a) ~ 0~0~
U- 0.2 C

~ > 000T
0.10
-
~
0 0
1.0 ‘.5 xt,
2.0 2.5

126
128 Compact Heat Exchangers

‘no
0 CD
c
0 CD

a -
N

u
0)
~
00
Fig. 7—7. Overall influence of row—to—row variations in the convection conductance a
in tube banks. Data based on staggered tube banks but apply equally well 0”
c
to in—line tube banks and are a good approximation for crossed—rod oC 0

and woven—screen matrices.


a

C
tt ft t
1i~E
/ /
/
1.00

II ~ /_
CD
0.90
o2 -~ N

-o z
0.80 •-~ 2
00
CCC -o CD

CD

II

EE
-~
0.70 c
>C
t c~ r~ ~o CCC CCC) C~1
.~a) CCCC) — .0 CN C~. 0
2 co co r-. F-. ~0 -0
NO. OF ROWS OF TUBES C ~dddddd
4-
8 0 20 30 405060 .E E o4•0~•
0
0 ~) 0

0) 0 D CD
D ~0 CCfl
o_ a CD
c 0
C

EC
:
4-

a
0 Cd

C
~;N(dD9/q)
F—
CO CO ~ Cd —CD CD ~ N —CD CD ~ N
0) 66 6 6 600
U- aao0 0
o 000
a~
00
0
q
0
0
~
0
0

129
Co

Fig. 7—9. Flow through an infinite randomly stacked woven—screen matrix, flow friction characteristics; a correlation of ex
perimental data from wire screens and crossed rods simulating wire screens. Perfect stacking, i.e., screens touching,
is assumed.

2 3 4 6 8 I0~

Fig. 7—10. Gas flow through an infinite randomly stacked sphere matrix. A correlation of experimental data with porosity varying from 0.37 to 0.39.
See tabulation of data in Chap. 10.

8.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0

2.0

1.0
0.8

0.6
0.5
0.4

0.3

z
0,
0.2

2 34568102 2 3456 ~iü~ 2 3456 810k 2 345


NR
T 8
Experimental Methods

CC
a) C

4-C
a)
a —

a)
4.4 -C
o
CO ~
.2 .
.4— 0 —
o 0 0)
a)
~ ° :
o~-.-. ~

~E~a)
a) 0 =
‘4- D ~
0)0~
~~a)0

The bulk of the experimental data reported in Chap. 10 was obtained at Stanford
o > ~
= a) ‘4- 0
University and at the U.S. Navy Engineering Experiment Station, Annapolis,
— C 0~.-
Maryland. At both laboratories a steam-to-air test system was employed for all
D 0 .-
tests, with the exception of the circular tube banks, one plate-fin test core, and the
oa) a
0 a)
matrix surfaces. For the circular tube banks and the crossed-rod matrices tested at
~ ~ C
‘4-
o ~
-
>.~
Stanford, a transient test technique was employed, although the same air duct was
-a ~ -~ -g used as for the steam-to-air tests. One plain plate-fin core tested at Stanford was
4- C C
OoO
a ~
~ hot-water-heated rather than steam-heated, but again the same air duct was used.
g the other matrix surfaces were tested using a transient technique different from that
°d a)~2 employed for the tube-bank tests.
.?S g C C
t ~4_ C .2 Detailed descriptions of the experimental apparatus and method of test-data
00Q)
E ~ 2 analysis employed at the U.S. Navy Engineering Experiment Station and at Stan
2
~C 0 ford are contained in references 1 to 5. Essentially the same test technique, and
o .— c.-. .4- similar equipment, were used at the Engineering Experiment Station and at Stan
C
0 ~ ford for the steam-to-air tests; therefore, only the Stanford system will be described.
‘4- C D

=-3~2
.2 ~ -e.2 The steam-to-air apparatus and methods will be described first, followed by the
a) a)
transient systems.

000 0
C’)
d
0W~0Lfl~t
rj~ coo
fl
c
C’)
c
r1~
00000
‘OLfl’~ fl
0
C’)
0 Steam-to-Air Tests
N 00000 0 0
0 000 0 0
0) )d CS The principal element of the test apparatus was a controllable-flow air duct with a
cia N
U- i’~
rectangular test section, 8* x 9~- in., into which cores containing the heat transfer
surfaces under investigation were inserted. The test cores were cross-flow heat ex
changers allowing for air heating on one side at the expense of condensing steam on
the other side. The air-flow rate was metered by standard flat-plate orifices installed
in a 12-in.-diameter circular portion of the test duct downstream from the test sec
tion. The orifices were constructed and installed in accordance with ASME speci
fications, references 6 and 7. Orifice coefficients from these references were used.

132
134 Compact Heat Exchangers Experimental Methods 135

Air-temperature measurements upstream and downstream of the test section ±3.5 per cent
and at the orifice were made by calibrated, radiation-shielded, single-junction, Npr ±5.0 per cent
iron-constantan thermocouples. For the duct section downstream from the test core, N~~Np~2”3 ±5.0 per cent
27-point traverses were made in order to obtain an accurate bulk mean temperature. I ±5.0 per cent
For the other positions, 9-point traverses were taken. Steam temperatures were NR ±2.0 per cent
measured by iron-constantan thermocouples welded into brass tubes.
The principal difference between the test ducts at the U.S. Navy Engineering
Air-pressure differentials and gauge pressures at both the test section and the
Experiment Station and at Stanford University is that the former had a forced draft
orifice were measured by a system of piezometer rings with inclined draft gauges
while the latter had an induced-draft blower. With induced draft, uniform flow con
and vertical single-leg water manometers. Steam-gauge pressures were measured
ditions across the core could be established with relative ease.
with mercury manometers.
A steam system supplied slightly superheated steam at an accurately controlled
pressure to the test core. Roughly four times as much steam was blown through the Transient Tests of Tube Banks and Crossed-rod Matrices
core as was condensed, in order to prevent the build-up of a substantial condensate-
film thermal resistance. Both condensate and excess steam were separately metered The transient tests of tube banks and crossed-rod matrices were carried out in the
same air duct as described for the steady-state steam-to-air tests. The tube banks
so that an energy-balance check could be made on the accuracy of the instrumen
tation by comparing the energy loss of the steam to the energy gain of the air. The under test were built into test cores, 83- x 93- in. frontal area, using 3--in. -diameter
aluminum tubes fitted into a pair of plastic tube sheets at the top and bottom of the
average deviation from balance was consistently less than 3 per cent.
test core. The same core frame and tubes were used for all patterns, the only differ
Measurements of air temperature upstream and downstream of the test core,
ences being in the removable tube sheets. For the friction-factor tests the procedure
air-flow rate, steam pressures and temperatures, and air pressure drop through the
was identical to that described for the steam-to-air cores. However, heat transfer
test core, together with a consideration of the steam-side condensate-film heat trans
performance was established by a novel transient-test scheme whereby one of the
fer resistance (less than 10 per cent of the total), the pressure losses at the entrance
aluminum tubes was replaced by an externally identical copper thermal-capacitor
and exit to the test core, and the temperature ineffectiveness of the extended surface,
rod. The copper rod contained a thermocouple, and the test procedure involved
provided sufficient information for the determination of the Stanton number
heating the rod to about 30° above air-flow temperature, inserting it at the desired
(h/Gc~) and friction factor f Together with the Reynolds number (4r5G/pj, also
location in the core, and recording its temperature-time history on cooling. From
established from the above measurements, these comprise the nondimensional heat
these data the heat transfer conductance can be readily deduced. The validity of
transfer and flow-friction characteristics of the surface under investigation.
this method of testing was established by comparing the results for two circular-
The thermocouple systems were designed to measure all temperatures to an
tube patterns with the results obtained for the same patterns with steam-heated
accuracy of ±0.2°F. Straightening vanes and trim tabs were provided and adjusted
steady-state test cores. It was found that the method was excellent for staggered
to ensure a very nearly uniform air velocity in the duct at the test section. Consid
tubes, but somewhat limited in useftilness for in-line banks. The virtue of the tran
erable effort was expended to provide accurately controlled conditions for steady-
sient method lies in its simplicity and accuracy and the speed with which data for a
state operation. Various cross checks were provided so that a continuous verification
large variety of tube patterns can be obtained. Experimental uncertainty has been
was made of the accuracy of the instrumentation.
analyzed and is found to be about the same for both f and N~~Np~2’3 as found for
An analysis of experimental uncertainty was made considering the following
the steady-state tests.
possible sources of error: The procedure for the crossed-rod matrices was virtually identical to that for
1. Uncertainties inherent in the design and performance of the test system
the tube banks, except that the nonactive tubes were plastic and the test duct was
2. Instrument uncertainty circular rather than rectangular.
3. Uncertainties introduced by virtue of the idealizations and the accuracy of
the transport properties, viscosity, and thermal conductivity
4. Uncertainties in the determination of the test-core dimensions Transient Tests of Screen and Sphere Matrices
The probable uncertainty in the final results of the steam-to-air tests varies The screen and sphere matrices, summarized in Chap. 7, were tested in an entirely
somewhat for different test cores and for different air-flow rates. A conservative different test apparatus. Because of the character of the matrix surfaces, a transient
estimate is given below from the analysis of a number of different tests, and this test technique is virtually mandatory. For the small-mesh screens used, it was also
estimate is believed to be approximately applicable to all of the test results not practicable to measure directly the matrix surface temperature. The system
reported. used involved heating the matrix uniformly with a stream of hot air, changing the
136 Compact Heat Exchangers

entering air temperature suddenly to a lower uniform temperature by a quick flow-


9
switching method, and recording the temperature-time history of the air leaving the
test core. The surface heat transfer conductance could then be deduced from the
maximum slope of the temperature-time plot by an analysis that is fully described
Heat Transfer Surface Geometry
in reference 4. The theoretical solution used for this purpose is presented in Fig. 3-17.
The test duct and test cores were circular in section, 2.93 in. in diameter. The
test cores were constructed by stacking together 2.93-in-diameter sections of screen
to the desired core depth. The sphere matrix was similar, with the small spheres
packed in a 2.93-in.-diameter can. Air-flow rates were measured by both ASME
standard orifices and a Fischer-Porter flowrater. All temperatures were measured
by iron-constantan thermocouples. Eight thermocouples in series were used to
measure the critical core upstream and downstream temperatures. Pressures were
measured by inclined draft gauges and vertical water manometers.
A detailed analysis of the experimental uncertainty of this system yielded the
following results:
±13 per cent
N~~Npr ±14 per cent
I ± 3 per cent
NR ± 2 per cent The purpose of this chapter is to bring together in one place the complete geometrical
descriptions of the compact heat transfer surfaces for which the direct performance
data are given in Chap. 10. Actually, all the data presented here are also given in the
References
captions to the direct-performance-data graphs in Chap. 10 and on the graphs them
1. London, A. L., and C. K. Ferguson: Gas Turbine Plant Regenerator Surfaces, Bureau sf Ships Re selves. However, by assembling this information in one place, it is much more con
search Memsrandum 2-46, Navships (250-338-3), July, 1946. venient to compare one surface with another when it is only the geometry that is
2. London, A. L., and C. K. Ferguson: Test Results of High Performance Heat Exchanger Surfaces
being studied.
Used in Aircraft Intercoolers and Their Significance for Gas Turbine Regenerator Design, Trans.
ASME, vol. 71, p. 12, 1949. • The data are assembled in Tables 9-1 to 9-5, and scale diagrams of the surfaces
3. Kays, W. M., and A. L. London: Heat Transfer and Flow Friction Characteristics of Some Com are given in Figs. 9-1 to 9-16. The various types of compact surfaces are grouped
pact Heat Exchanger Surfaces—Part I: Test System and Procedure, Trans. ASME, vol. 72, together in the following order:
pp. 1075—1085, 1950.
4. Coppage, J. E., and A. L. London: Heat Transfer and Friction Characteristics of Porous Media, 1. Tubular surfaces (Figs. 9-1 to 9-2)
Cheni. Eng. Prsg., February, 1956. a. Flow inside circular and flattened circular tubes
~; 5. Kays, W. M., A. L. London, and R. K. Lo: Heat Transfer and Flow Friction Characteristics for
b. Flow normal to banks of tubes
Gas Flow Normal to Tube Banks—Use of a Transient Test Technique, Trans. ASME vol. 76,
no. 3, pp. 387—396, 1954. 2. Plate-fin surfaces (Figs. 9-3 to 9-9)
6. “Fluid Meters, Their Theory and Application,” 4th ed., ASME Research Publication, 1937. a. Plain fins
b. Louvered fins
Strip fins
d. Wavy fins
e. Pin fins
f Perforated fins
3. Flow normal to banks of finned tubes (Figs. 9-10 to 9-13)
a. Circular fins and tubes
b. Circular tubes, continuous fins
c. Flat tubes, continuous fins
4. Matrix surfaces (Figs. 9-14 to 9-16)

Each of these categories will now be described briefly.


138 Compact Heat Exchangers Heat Transfer Surface Geometry 139

The tubular surfaces, illustrated in Figs. 9-1 and 9-2, are the simplest form of been further subdivided into plain-fin, louvered-fin, strip-fin, pin-fin, wavy-fin, and
compact heat transfer surface. Test data have been obtained for flow both inside and perforated-fin types.
normal to tube banks, using circular tubes and tubes that have been flattened to an The plain-fin surfaces are characterized by long uninterrupted flow passages,
oval shape. A further variation of the flattened tube is the dimpled tube; dimpling is with performance similar to that obtained inside long circular tubes. There is, how
sometimes used as a method of boundary-layer interruption to increase the heat ever, a decided tube-length effect on both the heat transfer and friction performance,
transfer conductance without increasing flow velocity. and the length/hydraulic-diameter ratio L/4rh is indicated on each of the surface dia
A semi-descriptive method of surface designation is employed. Thus ST indi grams. The length L is not necessarily the flow length of the total heat exchanger,
cates flow inside straight tubes, while VT’ refers to flattened tubes and FTD to flat- but is rather the flow length of uninterrupted fin; the actual heat-exchanger flow
tenth and dimpled tubes. For flow normal to banks of circular tubes, the tube length may involve several flow lengths of fin material placed end to end. Unless
arrangement is designated according to whether the arrangement is staggered or in absolutely perfect alignment is obtained, the surface will behave as if there were a
line, and then by the transverse and longitudinal pitch ratios. Thus surface 5 1.50— new hydrodynamic and thermal entry length, and in commercial heat exchangers,
1.00 is a staggered arrangement with a transverse pitch ratio of 1.50 diameters and no attempt is usually made to obtain perfect alignment. Note that the plain-fin sur
a longitudinal (flow direction) pitch ratio of 1.00 diameters. The letter I before the faces include rectangular passages, triangular passages, and passages with rounded
numerals indicates an in-line arrangement. Part of the circular-tube-bank surfaces and reentry corners, so that there is considerably more variation in geometry than
were tested by a steady-state steam-to-air technique, and the remainder by a transient in the summary correlation curves in Chap. 7 where only plain-fin surfaces with rec
technique. The type of test is indicated in Fig. 9-2 and also in the captions to the direct tangular flow passages are considered. Note that some of the triangular-passage
test data in Chap. 10. surfaces are of a double-passage construction, which is a scheme that provides the
The dimensional information for the tubular surfaces in Tables 9-1 and 9-2 heat-exchanger designer with a method for obtaining flexibility in relative flow area,
includes the hydraulic diameter, free-flow/frontal-area ratio, and heat transfer area hot and cold sides, while still using a common fin dimension.
per unit of volume for each of the surfaces. These are needed in addition to the basic The semidescriptive method of designating plain-fin surfaces refers to the num
heat transfer and flow-friction performance data in order- to complete the heat-ex ber of fins per inch transverse to the flow direction. Thus surface 14.77 has 14.77 fins
changer analysis. The given dimensions apply to the particular surfaces as tested. per inch. The additional letter T indicates the surfaces with definite triangular
Since the basic heat transfer and flow-friction design data in Chap. 10 are presented passages.
in nondimensional form, they should apply equally well to surfaces of different size, The louvered-fin surfaces are characterized by fins that have been cut and bent
i.e., tubes of different diameter, providing only that complete geometrical similarity out into the flow stream at frequent intervals. The purpose of louvering is to break up
with the test surface is maintained. This is also true of all the other heat transfer sur the boundary layers so as to yield higher heat transfer conductances than are possible
faces for which direct performance data are presented in Chap. 10. However, it should with plain fins under the same flow conditions. As a general rule, the more frequent
be kept in mind that complete ~geometrica1 similarity also applies to such secondary the interruption, the higher the conductance, although the friction factor is also
features as~~face ro~i1hnes~and therefore extrapolation to very great changes in increased. The resulting improvement in heat transfer versus friction-power behavior
surface size may introduce some additional uncertainty into the performance data. is discussed in Chap. 1.
In addition to the tube banks shown in Fig. 9-2, data are also presented in Chap. The louvered-fin surfaces are designated by two figures. The first refers to the
10 (Figs. 10-11, 10-15, and 10-16) for other staggered and in-line arrangements from length of the louvered fin in the flow direction, the second to the fins per inch trans
the extensive data of Grimison [1]. verse to the flow. Thus surface f-i 1.1 has 4--in, louvers and 11.1 fins per inch.
In Figs. 9-3 to 9-9 are shown diagrams of a great many surfaces of the plate-fin The strip-fin surfaces are similar in principle to the louvered-fin surfaces, the
type. The plate-fin surfaces are especially useful where both fluids in the heat ex only difference being that the short sections of fins are aligned entirely with the flow
changer are gases, since extended surface can be effectively employed on both fluid direction. With the strip-fin configuration it is feasible to have very short flow-length
sides. With the plate-fin construction it is possible to achieve a very large area com fins and thus very high heat transfer conductances. The experimental uncertainty for
pactness or heat transfer area per unit of volume. Flexibility in heat-exchanger design the strip-fin surfaces is probably somewhat greater than for any of the other surfaces
is possible because the two fluid sides are independent of one another and the most because the performance, and most especially the friction performance, is materially
suitable type of extended surface can be chosen for each of the fluids. This is not affected by the thickness and character of the fin leading edge. Fins of this type are
possible with the circular-tube-bank surfaces where, for example, the choice of flow generally constructed by a machine-cutting process that inevitably leaves a slightly
normal to a bank of tubes for one fluid automatically fixes the flow geometry for the bent and scarfed fin edge that differs depending upon the fin material and the char
other fluid, with nearly the same heat transfer area on both sides. acter of the cutting tool. Since a few ten-thousandths of an inch of scarfing can have
The surface configurations shown in Figs. 9-3 to 9-9 represent most of the com a considerable effect, it is difficult to either dimensionally describe this effect or to
mon types in present use, any two of which could be built together into a heat-ex exactly duplicate one of the test surfaces. In the captions to the direct-test-data curves
changer core using the sandwich type of assembly shown. The plate-fin surfaces have in Chap. 10 for the strip-fin surfaces, the fin material used for the test surfaces is mdi-
140 Compact Heat Exchangers Heat Transfer Surface Geometry 141

cated, because a soft material, such as aluminum, may be expected to yield fin edges If the original scale is maintained but fins of different thicknesses are used, there
somewhat different than would be obtained from a hard material, such as stainless will be little effect on the nondimensional performance of the plain-fin surfaces but an
steel. Most of the fins of the test surfaces were of aluminum construction, and although increasingly important effect on louvered- and strip-fin performances. It should also
this by no means precludes the use of the performance data for steel fins, it does sug be noted that changing fin thickness for any of the surfaces affects free-flow area and
gest some conservatism in design. Briggs and London [4 or 5] touch on this point. hydraulic diameter. Thus the dimensional information in the tables must be altered
The designation scheme for the strip-fin surfaces is the same as that used for the accordingly.
louvered surfaces. Figures 9-10 to 9-13 show diagrams of 21 surfaces of the finned-tube type. The
The wavy-fin surfaces are also high-performance surfaces with performance ~ ernpJQyç~ wire zej≥f the if Is in the heat
quite similar to the louvered and strip-fin surfaces. The change in flow direction c]~ngctJ&&gas apiliheother is a Jiqiñci. Since gnses characterisSjç~Jly tend to
induced by the fins caused boundary-layer separation with effects similar to com ~ conductances. than liquic~s, more arç~is iequired on thç
plete fin interruption. The wavy-fin surfaces are designated by two figures giving gas side of the surfa e for a baanced design. The finned-tube surfaces satisf~’ this
the numb& of fins per inch and the wavelength, followed by the letter W. Thus sur requirement.
face 11.54W has 11.5 fins per inch and a complete wave every * in. Three fundamental types of finned-tube surfaces are considered: (1) circular
Pin-fin surfaces are another example of the plate-fin system, where the purpose tubes with integral circular spiraled fins, (2) circular tubes with continuous fins, and
is to achieve very high heat transfer conductances by maintaining thin boundary (3) finned flat tubes. In order to present as complete a picture as possible, some of
layers on the fins. By constructing the fins from small-diameter wire, the effective what are believed to be the more reliable data in the literature have been included,
flow length of the fins can be very small indeed. The pin-fin surfaces are, however, in addition to the data obtained on this project. In this category are the data ofJame
characterized by quite high friction factors attributable primarily to form drag asso son [2] on finned circular tubes and data obtained by the Trane Company [3] on
ciated with the boundary-layer separation that occurs on the pins. Nevertheless, the circular tubes with continuous fins.
very high heat transfer conductances attainable often more than offset the high fric Again, a semidescriptive surface-designation scheme is employed. The letters
tion factors when the final heat-exchanger design is considered. The designation CF refer to circular fins; otherwise, the fins may be assumed to be continuous. The
scheme for the pin-fin surfaces is not descriptive. first numerals refer to the number of fins per inch; the second (if any) refer either to
One perforated-fin surface is described, designated simply by the number of the nominal outside diameter of the tube in the case of circular tubes, or the tube
fins per inch transverse to the flow and the letter P. Holes cut out of the fins again dimension in the flow direction in the case of flat tubes.
provide boundary-layer interruption. The friction factors for this surface are quite The dimensional data on all the finned-tube surfaces are contained in Table
low, suggesting that there is very little form drag induced, but there are unfortunately 9-4. Since the basic heat transfer and flow-friction design data in Chap. 10 are in
insufficient data on this kind of surface to draw much in the way of general generalized nondimensional form, they are presumably applicable to surfaces of
conclusions. different sizes than the original test surfaces, but again complete geometrical simi
The dimensional information given in Table 9-3 provides all that is necessary, larity must be maintained if the surfaces are to be scaled up or down. No attempt has
in addition to the basic heat transfer and flow-friction data in Chap. 10, to apply the been made to generalize the correlations to the point where variations in the nondi
plate-fin surfaces to heat-exchanger design. It will be noted that the heat transfer mensional geometry can be handled.
area density is given as /3, the area per unit of volume between the plates on one flow All the fins on the finned-circular-tube surfaces are of the continuous-spiraled-fin
side. This is not area per unit of total heat-exchanger volume, because the latter type. However, the basic performance data presented will probably not differ
depends also upon which particular surface is incorporated on the other side. In markedly for separate disk fins.
Chap. 2 are given some useflil geometrical relations which can be used with the infor Figures 9-14 to 9-16 show three types of matrix surfaces. The most unambigu
mation of Table 9-3 to determine the total area density, as well as the free-flow/ ously defined of these surfaces is the crossed-rod matrix (Fig. 9-14). Staggered, in-line,
frontal-area ratio of the heat exchanger. and randomly stacked rods with perfect stacking (each row touching) have been
Extrapolation of the plate-fin performance data to surfaces possessing a super tested, and the geometrical data on seven patterns considered are tabulated in Table
ficial geometrical similarity but different hydraulic diameter can probably be 9-5. The corresponding direct test data are given in Figs. 10-90 to 10-92 in Chap. 10
accomplished without introducing serious uncertainty for moderate changes in and in Tables 10-9.
hydraulic diameter. For the plain-fin surfaces, this has already in effect been sug Performance data on the randomly stacked woven-screen matrix (Fig. 9-15) are
gested in the generalized performance curves of Chap. 7. For the various interrupted- not tabulated or graphed in Chap. 10, and thus detailed geometrical data are not
fin surfaces, the uncertainty is greater because of the proportionally greater influence given in this chapter. However, correlations of tests of woven-screen matrices are
of such factors as the cleanliness of the fin leading and trailing edges and fin root con presented in Chap. 7, based on a number of sources described in Chap. 7.
nections. An aerodynamically cleaner surface is generally obtained in the larger- Another matrix surface is that formed by randomly stacked spheres (Fig. 9-16).
scale than in the smaller-scale surfaces. Again, a correlation of data from a number of sources is presented in Chap. 7, and no
142 Compact Heat Exchangers
~0

geometrical data are given in this chapter because the performance data presented are
not the direct measured performance of a particular defined surface. However, since
U
cc~oo’-c ccC0”
(fi a~ cc a cc cc cc cc a- cc be
cc cc CD CD a- cc cc cc cc cc C C
only a single pair of performance curves is proposed for a randomly stacked bed of
spheres, the coordinates of these curves are tabulated in Chap. 10.
The matrix surfaces are characterized by at least a potential of very high area
compactness (if small rods, wires, or spheres are employed), and they are also charac a
terized by high heat transfer conductances. Typical uses of such surfaces might be in c
0
‘— ~ cc cc C cc cc ~- cc cc cc cc cc cc
periodic-flow heat exchangers (see Chap. 2), as fuel elements in nuclear reactors, and ,~
a en cc cc cc cc — cc cc cc cc cc cc
cc cc cc cc cc a’ cc cc cc cc cc a’
,~ ~
as energy-storage devices in gas blow-down systems. 0
0
n

References ~
0 c. cc
cc cc
cc
cc cc cc CO -n cc cc cc cc cc
cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc a- r.. cc
cc cc

6a .-,~c.4cccccc~CO—~~
cc cc ~ cc cc cc cc ~ cc cc cc cc
1. Grimison, E. D.: Correlation and Utilization of New Data on Flow Resistance and Heat Transfer 0
for Cross-flow of Gases over Tube Banks, Trans. ASME~ vol. 59, 1937. .5.1)
2. Jameson, S. L.: Tube Spacing in Finned-tube Banks, Trans. ASME, vol. 67, 1945. ~ cc cc cc cc cc cc — cc cc cc
~. ~.. cc a- cc cc cc cc cc cc a- cc a- cc
-a>. ‘- — cc — — C., cc
cccvcenccccccccen
3. Extended Surface Heat Transfer Equipment (as corrected), Trane Company Bulletzn DS-378, March,
~ cc ó cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc
1953, The Trane Company, LaCrosse, Wisc.
4. Briggs, D. C. and A. L. London: The Heat Transfer and Flow Friction Characteristics of Five Off cc be cc cc cc cc cc cc
. cc cc cc cc cc cc — cc cc cc
set Rectangular and Six Plain Triangular Plate-fin Heat Transfer Surfaces, Trans. Intern. Heat ~
a .~
— cc cc cc
cca~cc.flccCacca’a
cc cc cc — cc cc
Transfer Conf 1961, Paper 14, p. 122, ASME. .6 ~, ~ cc cc cc cc cc cc ~ cc ~
Cc
~Q
5. Briggs, D. C., and A. L. London: The Heat Transfer and Flow Friction Characteristics of Five Off
set Rectangular and Six Plain Triangular Plate-fin Heat Transfer Surfaces, Tech. Rept 49, Depart cc 0
~
cc cc cc — cc — cc cc cc cc ~a a
,-2 c... cc cc cc cc a. cc cc cc cc cc E. ‘-
ment of Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University, November, 1960. -Q qqq~~qqq~q a
cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc
— V 0

be cc cc cc cc cc cc cc 43 43
c . cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc ‘
~ci 0 cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc 0 0
a
0- cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc S S
cccc
C
~ cc cc cc cc cc cc
C,) .,, cc cc — cc cc cc cc cc 00 —
ca C...

cc
cc
a’
cc
cc
cc
a’
cc
a-
cc
cc
cc
cc

cc
cc
-
cc
cc
C-
cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc

C 0 cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc
.. . cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc
Table 9-1. Surface Geometry, Flow Inside Circular and ~
cc
.8 c~
cc
c’~
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
~
cc
~
cc
cc -o -e
80
Flattened Circular Tubes ~ 4)0
00

C
Surface
Type
Hydraulic diameter 4rh Test core Minimum free-flow z 2
E~
ct) cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
c~,
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
designation ft in. (L/4r5) area per tube, ft2
C
~ 4) 4) 4) 4)
ST-i Circular 0.01925 0.231 79.2 0.0002908 c~
~ 5000000 00
0 ~-. .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 >.. .5 .5 >. ~..
FE-i Flattened 0.01433 0.1719 . . . 0.0002195
FED-i Flattened, 0.01116 0.1338 . . . 0.000169
5,
> •~8 88888~86~
E~’ ~
dimpled C

0
ci)
C.)
~
0-
cc cc cc cc cc cc cc — cc cc
z
CI)
0
c’:i 4)0 cc cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
cc
CC~)
a
cc
cc
c~
1))’ cc
cc cc
cc
cc
~~ .1 cccc
I I
cc cc
I I
cc
cc
I
cc

cc
.-,
I
cc

I
cc
C..l
ci) cc cc cc cc cc •t) cc cc cc
cc6
-Q
cc cc cc cc cc cc cc — —

E~
143
Table 9-3. Surface Geometry, Plate-fin Surfaces
(a) Plain fins

Plate spacing Hydraulic diameter


Surface b Fin thickness Flow length of Heat transfer area/
Fins/in, uninterrupted volume between plates, Fin area/
designation ô~ in. fin, in. /3, ft2/ft3 total area
ft in. ft in.

2.0 0.0625 0.750 2.0 0.0474 0.569 0.032 12.0 76.1 0.606
3.01 0.0625 0.750 3.01 0.03546 0.426 0.032 12.0 98.3 0.706
3.97 0.0625 0.750 3.97 0.0282 0.338 0.032 12.0 119.4 0.766
4.00 0.015 0.180 See surface 0.0150 0.180 See surface 180 See surface 0.500
diagrams diagrams diagrams
5.3 0.0392 0.470 5.3 0.02016 0.242 0.006 2.49 188 0.719
6.2 0.0337 0.405 6.2 0.0182 0.218 0.010 1.20 204 0.728
9.03 0.0686 0.823 9.03 0.01522 0.1828 0.008 1.19 244 0.888
11.1 0.0208 0.250 11.1 0.01012 0.1213 0.006 2.50 367 0.756
11.11(a) 0.0400 0.480 11.11 0.01153 0.1385 0.008 8.00 312 0.854
14.77 0.0275 0.330 14.77 0.00848 0.1019 0.006 2.51 420 0.844
15.08 0.0348 0.418 15.08 0.00876 0.1052 0.006 6.84 414 0.870
19.86 0.0208 0.250 19.86 0.00615 0.0738 0.006 2.51 561 0.849
10.27T 0.0453 0.544 10.27 0.01259 0.151 0.010 5.0 289.9 0.863
11.94T 0.0207 0.249 11.94 0.009396 0.113 0.006 5.0 393.0 0.769
12.OOT 0.0208 0.250 12.00 0.009412 0.113 0.006 2.5 392.7 0.773
16.96T 0.0213 0.256 16.96 0.005652 0.0678 0.006 5.0 607.8 0.861
25.79T 0.0170 0.204 25.79 0.003771 0.0453 0.006 2.5 855.6 0.884
30.33T 0.0287 0.345 30.33 0.004009 0.0481 0.006 2.5 812.5 0.928
46.45T 0.00833 0.100 46.45 0.002643 0.0317 0.002 2.63 1332.5 0.837

( b) Louvered fins
Plate spacing Hydraulic diameter Fin Louver Louver Heat transfer area/
Surface /, Fin area/
Fins/in, thickness spacing gap volume between plates,
designation 6, in. in. in. /3, ft2/ft3 total area
ft in. ft in.

*—6.06 0.0208 0.250 6.06 0.01460 0.1753 0.006 0.375 0.055 256 0.640
~(a)—6.06 0.0208 0.250 6.06 0.01460 0.1753 0.006 0.375 0.130 256 0.640
~—6.06 0.0208 0.250 6.06 0.01460 0.1753 0.006 0.500 0.055 256 0.640
~‘(a)—6.06 0.0208 0.250 6.06 0.01460 0.1753 0.006 0.500 0.130 256 0.640
*—8.7 0.0208 0.250 8.7 0.01196 0. 1437 0.006 0.375 0.055 307 0.705
f(a)—8.7 0.0208 0.250 8.7 0.01196 0.1437 0.006 0.375 0.080 307 0.705
4.41.1 0.0208 0.250 11.1 0.01012 0.1214 0.006 0.1875 0.055 367 0.756
1—11.1 0.0208 0.250 11.1 0.01012 0.1214 0.006 0.250 0.035 367 0.756
1(b)—Ill 0.0208 0.250 11.1 0.01012 0.1214 0.006 0.250 0.055 367 0.756
1—11.1 0.0208 0.250 11.1 0.01012 0.1214 0.006 0.375 0.055 367 0.756
1(b)—ill 0.0208 0.250 11.1 0.01012 0.1214 0.006 0.375 0.055 367 0.756
~—11.1 0.0208 0.250 11.1 0.01012 0.1214 0.006 0.500 0.055 367 0.756
1—11.1 0.0208 0.250 11.1 0.01012 0.1214 0.006 0.750 0.040 367 0.756
f(b)—11.1 0.0208 0.250 11.1 0.01012 0.1214 0.006 0.750 0.040 367 0.756

C~1
Table 9-3. Surface Geometry, Plate-fin Surfaces (continued)
(c) Strip fins

Plate spacing Hydraulic diameter


Surface b 4r5 Fin thickness Flow length of Heat transfer area/
Fins/in. Fin area/
designation ~, in. uninterrupted volume between plates, total area
ft in. ft in. fin, in. /3, ft2/ft~

1(s)-~-ll.l 0.0208 0.250 11.1 0.01012 0.1214 0.006 0.25 367 0.756
~—12.2 0.0404 0.485 12.2 0.01120 0.1343 0.004 0.094 340 0.862
*—15.2 0.0346 0.414 15.2 0.00868 0.1042 0.006 0.125 417 0.873
*-l3.95 0.0313 0.375 13.95 0.00879 0.1055 0.010 0.125 381 0.840
~—ll.94(D) 0.0198 0.237 11.94 0.007436 0.0892 0.006 0.500 461 0.796
+-.15.4(D) 0.0172 0.206 15.4 0.00527 0.0632 0.006 0.250 642 0.816
*—12.18(D) 0.0294 0.353 12.18 0.008848 0.01037 0.004 0.178 422 0.847
+—15.75(D) 0.0253 0.304 15.75 0.006790 0.00815 0.004 0.143 526 0.859
*~20.06(D) 0.0167 0.201 20.06 0.004892 0.00587 0.004 0.125 698 0.843
*—19.82(D) 0.0171 0.205 19.82 0.005049 0.00605 0.004 0.125 680 0.841
~_16.12(D) 0.0172 0.206 16.12 0.00509 0.00611 0.006 0.125 660 0.823
*—16.00(D) 0.0212 0.255 16.00 0.006112 0.00733 0.006 0.125 550 0.845
*—16.12(T) 0.0261 0.314 16.12 0.00514 0.00617 0.006 0.125 650 0.882

(a’) Wavy fins

Plate spacing Hydraulic diameter


Surface b 4r~, Fin Wave length Double wave Heat transfer area/ Fin area/
Fins/in, thickness . ‘ amplitude, volume between plates, total area
designation I I in.
~ in. ft in. ~, in. in. /3, ft2/ft3

l1.48—*W 0.0345 0.413 11.44 0.01060 0.1272 0.006 0.375 0.0775 351 0.847
l1.5—*W 0.0313 0.375 11.5 0.00993 0.119 0.010 0.375 0.078 347 0.822
17.84W 0.0345 0.413 17.8 0.00696 0.0836 0.006 0.375 0.0775 514 0.892

(e) Pin fins

Plate spacing Hydraulic diameter Transverse Longitudinal Heat transfer area/


Surface b 4r5 Pin diameter . . . . Fin area/
Pin pattern pin spacing, pin spacing, volume between plates,
designation in. . . total area
ft in. ft in. in. sn. /3, ft2/ft~

AP-l 0.020 0.240 In-line 0.01444 0.1734 0.040 0.125 0.125 188 0.512
AP-2 0.0332 0.398 In-line 0.01172 0.1408 0.040 0.12 0.096 204 0.686
PF-3 0.0625 0.750 In-line 0.00536 0.0644 0.031 0.0602 0.0602 339 0.834
PF-4(F) 0.0418 0.502 Staggered 0.0186 0.223 0.065 0.199 0.125 140 0.704
PF-9(F) 0.0425 0.510 In-line 0.0297 0.356 0.065 0.238 0.196 96.2 0.546
PF-l0(F) 0.0367 0.440 In-line 0.01426 0.171 0.063 X 0.021 0.090 0.110 214 0.693

(f) Perforated fins


. Plate spacing Hydraulic diameter Fin Hole Hole Heat transfer area/
Surface b 4r5
Fins/in, thickness diameter, spacing/ volume between plates, Fin area/
designation I ~, in. in. in.2 /3 ft2/ft3 total area
ft in. ft in.

13.95(P) 0.0167 0.200 12.95 0.00822 0.0986 0.012 0.079 32 381 0.705
Table 9-4. Surface Geometry, Flow Normal to Banks of Filmed Tubes
I
( a) Circular tubes, circular fins

Surface Tube Tube Fin outside Transverse Longitudinal Hydraulic diameter Fin Free-flow! Heat transfer area/
diameter, diameter, tube spacing, tube spacing, Fins/in. 4r5 thickness frontal total volume, Fin area/
designation arrangement .
in. in. in. in. 3, in. area a a, ftt/ft3 total area
ft in.
CF—7.34 Staggered 0.38 0.92 0.975 0.800 7.34 0.0154 0.187 0.018 0.538 140 0.892
CF—8.72 Staggered 0.38 0.92 0.975 0.800 8.72 0.01288 0.1547 0.018 0.524 163 0.910
CF—8.72(c) Staggered 0.42 0.861 0.975 0.800 8.72 0.01452 0.1742 0.019 0.494 136 0.876
CF—l 1.46 0.38 0.92 0.975 0.800 11.46 0.00916 0.1173 0.016 0.510 209 0.931
Q•~ .-i ——-.-—..
0.b4t - -
1121 1237 70 00910 09i~ .. .....
1)830~
Staggered 0.645 1.121 1.232 1.35 8.7 0.01797 0.216. 0.010 0.443 98.7 0.862
CF—8.7-tJ(b) Staggered 0.645-~ 1.121 1.848 1.35 8.7 0.0383 0.460 0.010 0.628 65.7 0.862
CF—9.054J(a) Staggered 0.774 1.463 1.557 1.75 9.05 0.01681 0.202 0.012 0.455 108 0.835
CF—9.05—1J(b) Staggered 0.774 1.463 1.982 1.75 9.05 0.02685 0.322 0.012 0.572 85.1 0.835
CF—9.05--.~J(c) Staggered 0.774 1.463 2.725 1.75 9.05 0.0445 0.535 0.012 0.688 61.9 0.835
CF—9.05—~J(d) Staggered 0.774 1.463 2.725 0.80 9.05 0.01587 0.1908 0.012 0.537 135 0.835
CF—9.054J(e) Staggered 1.463 1.982 1.375 9.05 0.02108 0.253 0.012 0.572 108 0.835
CF-8~J~ Stareered 1.737 1.959 2063 0.01927 0.232 0.012 0.439 91.2 0.825
~~~l.0-J(b) Staggered 1.737 3.079 2.063 8.8 0.0443 0.520 V.0 L4 0.825

(b) Circular tubes, continuous fins

Hydraulic diameter
Tube 4r5 Fin Free-flow/ Heat transfer area/
Surface Tube Fin area/
designation arrangement diameter,
.
Fin type Fins/in, thickness frontal total volume, total area
in. 6, in. area a a, ft2/ft3
ft in.
-...
8.0-4T Staggered 0.402 Plain 8.0 0.01192 0.1430 0.013 0.534 179 0.913
7.75-.~T Staggered 0.676 Plain 7.75 0.01 14 0.137 0.016 0.481 169 0.950

(c) Flat tubes, continuous fins

Hydraulic diameter
Surface Tube Tube length Tube width 4r Fin Free-flow/ Heat transfer area/
designation arrangement Fin type (parallel to (normal to Fins/in, thickness frontal total volume, Fin area/
flow), in. flow), in. ft in. 8, in. area a a, ft2/ft3 total area

9.68—0.87
—-~ In-line Plain 0.870 0.120 9.68 0.01180 0.1416 0.004 0.697 229 0.795
9.1—0.7378 Staggered Plain 0.737 0.100 9.1 0.01380 0.1656 0.004 0.788 224 0.813
9.68—0.87R In-line Ruffled 0.870 0.120 9.68 0.01180 0.1416 0.004 0.697 229 0.795
9.21—0.7378R Staggered Ruffled 0.737 0.100 9.29 0.01352 0.1622 0.004 0.788 228 0.814
4—11.32—0.7378R Staggered Ruffled 0.737 0.100 11.32 0.01152 0.1382 0.004 0.780 270. 0.845
~1~
-_—________

-n
ooi CD

CD

-4
C ~1
0~
C PPppppp 9
0 3-,’ es es -3 -3 es es -~
~‘1 co~flo -.

0 CD
I, CD
CD a
PPPpppp ,a~
3-~c3(.D(?3c.Z0Dc.3
•‘.i —3 —i —i ‘-4 -‘.3 ‘.4
_.so
35 a CD
C
S
CD
3+

‘as’
.,0<
C

Ppppppc
C C C C C C
-5— ‘.4 — es C c~ 3-4-
Os ~s Os Os 40
09

-I
jWr 99ppppp
ss~.5’~ass40o,,—
,5. 3.) os Os
~~‘35
i’,,’Os
‘a

C
C
ni
C))
CD
~
Ce
5-#~
CD
‘-~

Cl)

CD
CD
-~ a a 9)
4j~I ~
~
3+
~ CD
~- C
9
3553
CD 5
Ce CD

~I
c’~1
c Fig. 9—2. Tubular surfaces.
TRANSIENT TESTS
375,—

—1 375 H
/•~\ /‘~ /‘~ O.75d~
— 0.5625
AIR

— + + — x~I5
~\~i \~/ ‘~

—1 ~l H
S- 1.50-1.00 ~ S-2.00-l.00
S-I.50-I.25 —A ~ X~’O.75

/ \ I~’~ IN
—~c
t 1-
(\ ,
6\. /
6\ ~I/ lb
/ ‘ /.~ ,‘~ ,-
FLOW --

~1 ~
/ ‘
~5

i\J\J
S- 1.25-1.25 S- 1.50-1.50 S-2..jO-0.75

STEADY STATE TESTS

5 TUBE ROWS 10

AIR
A 0 FLOW
FLOW

~1~
.25
S-l.50- 1.25(s)
1-1.50-1.25(s)

Fig. 9—3. Plate—fin surfaces, plain fins.

L/4rh 211
2.0

0375 O~25d

0225

L.~ L/4rhz 355 .*—

L/4rh~ 282 3.01 3.97


C~1
Fig. 9—4. Plate—fin surfaces, plain fins.

~ r 0.18’ L/4r :16.6


h
____
I~4 ol
L/4r :44 4
4h
.249”

L/4rh . 00L — ______________ 0.QtQ”


T
___ -

t I.— 0.48~”1 .1947” .1675” —

— II. 11(0) 10.271 11.941


~LE~F ~ LO.47~
L/4r h 22.1 .250
5.3 L/4r ~738 .256”
L/4r5” 24.7 33

14.7
* .1667” .1179”
0.322
__ -
12.OOT 16.96T

L/4rh.SS [.—0.405--~
.204” L/4r 52 _____

I
6.2 L/4rh :553
0.1326

.0659”
02216 --- 15.08
.0775” 25.791
30.33T

L/4rh”65 I..— 0.ez3~—.-]


L/4, ~83.O .100”

i
9.03
4 .350 b25”~1

9.86
L/4rh=206
.0431’
46.451
11.1

Fig. 9—5. Plate—fin surfaces, louvered fins.

0.25”
.035 .055”
-

I
875’ ~375~
~“O.25~
3/16—I 1.1 1.1
3/8-606 3/8 - 8.7

.130.035 ~-.035” ~-.055 1— 5035 .000”


~a~’~025~

~ r —~_-----._____~__ ~
3/8(a)— 6.06 U 375” I’”-,25—”-l
1/4—11.1 3/8(e) 8.7
1/2—11.1

~ç—.055” ,II0~-~ .25” r-O25~’”~


450.035 0.055’
a -~~‘~-i -
—~-
d -

/2- 6.06 /4(b)— III


3/4-11.1

0.25
J30” .035” -~ .2~ I—
\0.035 —0,055”

I—~~ —.~ dfF~r~~Z 0.375’


/2(a)- 6.06
3/8-11.1 3/4(b)il. I
c~ Fig. 9—6. Plate—fin surfaces, strip fins.

.125” .201” .125” .205”


iZ—E— _____ ~
m~- ~ —

1/4(S)— 11.1 3/32-12.22 .0499 U — —

— .0505” —

.072”~ ~1 •~“h 1/8 - 20.06(D) 1/8- 19.82(0)

H4’4”H
066”-~E
_.a_1.I25”[.i.~ fr._.206~...f ii .255”
APPR~
- --
1/8-15.2 .06211

1/8- 13.95 0625”—E: ---

500” .237” 1/8 - 16.00(D)


i~_i ~
~25O’-s~
1/8- 16.12(T)

1/2- 11.94(D)
1/4 - 15.4(D)
.0621’

.178” .353” I’ T~
1/8- 16.12(D)
I—
.082 I “E— _____
.0635” —E

1/6- 12.18(D) 1/7- 15.75 (D)

Fig. 9—7. Plate—fin surfaces, Fig. 9—8. Plate—fin surfaces, pin fins.
wavy fins.

~f~4• ~ 413

~0X.
11.44-3/8 W

AP
0562 ~-f--~i ~ PF 4

0775” APPROX
17.8—3/8W

.~ 375.. F— case”
.087”
-~- ~OJ96” I
~ AP 2
O,OI7~-.Jl.-

~
PF 9
375. ~-

11.5—3/8W

110’S

Fig. 9-9. Plate-fin surfaces,


___ -ç
perforated fins.
—“1 .200”
PP 3
~1~ ______ AP 10(F)
.072” ____________

fl (_~fi__32 HOLES
0.079” 218
13.95(P)
Cl’
(0
-)

LI) a,
I Fig. 9—11. Finned—tube surfaces, circular tubes, circular fins (continued).

—I

cr5 O.IIO5-~ [.-+j:O.012


C-)
U
C-) CF a05-3/4J(b) CF 9.05-3/4J(e)

Itt I

OIIO5-.~ ~+~‘O.OI2 CF 88-l.OJ(a)


CF SO5-3/4J(c)

Li
!c’J
cr5 N

-H ft~2o I
e IL
— 6 —~ .850 I cr5
-L~
3~O79”
C-)

C
t I It
a
D O.II37~—~ ~.--~~OI2~
0
O.1105”—.1 ~4-d~O.0I2”
0
CF S.05-3/4J(d) CF 8.8-l.OJ (b)
0
-D
D

Ii
a
0
0

0)
0
a
a Fig. 9—12. Finned—tube surfaces, circular tubes, continuous fins.
D
0) LI)
-o
Q
0•1
0) IL
c 0
C
U

d
o:I2~ ~
0)
U-
t , t t 8.0 -3/8 T 775-5/8T

156 157
158 Compact Heat Exchangers Heat Transfer Surface Geometry 159

Fig. 9—14. Matrix surfaces, crossed—rod matrices.

Fig. 9—13. Finned—tube surfaces, flat tubes, continuous fins. RAN DOM INLINE STAGGERED

0.100” =
pop pop
+-- ~—.-~-
=
~ -
=
+~6~rcozs. ~O8B”
11.32- 0.737-SR
~z~i _ xi I
x5~voroible
INLINE STAG GE RED

~s~.I2O” ~0.I20” Fig. 9—15. Matrix surfaces, woven—screen matrices.


0.4~6’~ ~
~-L0€”--~ See summary curves (Figs. 7—8 and 7—9)
~ ~0.870”~
~ for performance characteristics.
ao25”~— -~k -U-GU3~
025” 0.103”
9.68-0.87-R 9.68-0.87

Q~0”
1-~=
~
== I 0.100”
055”
-i—
==
=

.~0737f4
~-~“
9.29-0.737-SR 9.I-0,737-~

Fig. 9—16. Matrix surfaces, sphere matrices.


See summary curves (Fig. 7—10)
for performance characteristics.

I I I I I

A
Heat Transfer and Flow-friction Design Data 161

10 test data with no correction made for the thermal resistance of the condensate layer
on the steam side of the heat transfer surface. Before drawing in the best-interpreta
tion curves, a correction was made for an estimate of the steam-side resistance, and
Heat Transfer and Flow- friction the difference between the test points and the best-interpretation curves represents
the magnitude of this correction. Since the steam-side resistance was generally less
than 10 per cent of the overall resistance, only a moderately accurate estimate of this
Design Data resistance was necessary. No correction for a steam-side resistance was necessary for
the test results obtained by transient techniques; therefore, in these cases, the best-
interpretation curve is faired through the test points.
Where both hot- and cold-core friction data were obtained, the best-interpreta
tion curves are in all cases faired through the cold-core friction-factor test points,
there being no uncertainty about temperature-dependent property effects.
Figures 10-11, 10-15, 10-16, and 10-79 to 10-84 do not show any test-data points.
The curves are plots of equations derived from the indicated sources and do not repre
sent data obtained under the authors’ supervision. These results have been included
in this compilation in order to provide a more complete treatment of compact heat-
exchanger surfaces; they represent what are believed to be the most reliable informa
tion in the literature on the surfaces indicated.
Direct test data are presented in this chapter for 120 compact heat transfer surfaces. Tables 10-ito 10-10 are sun-nznaries of the basic heat transfer and flow-friction
The geometries of the surfaces are completely described in the preceding chapter. design data for all the surfaces tested under the authors’ supervision. The tabular
The sources of the data and the experimental methods are discussed in Chap. 8. The summaries are taken directly from the best-interpretation curves and do not repre
present chapter will consist of a brief description of the tables and graphs, followed sent test points. They are presented for the reader who may wish to plot his own
by some comments on certain of the test results which require more explanation. curves.
The test data for the various configurations are presented in the same order as Certain features of the individual graphs will now be pointed out in the order
the surface diagrams in Figs. 9-1 to 9-16. The surfaces may be identified by both the in which they appear.
designation number and the surface diagrams which appear on each of the graphs - In Fig. 10-12, the high Reynolds-number end of the friction-factor curve is
of basic heat transfer and flow-friction design data. The pertinent dimensional data dashed. In-line tube banks often show a marked tendency to whistle, and if the sound
for each of the surfaces are given in the captions to the figures. These are the same is sufficiently intense, it may be reflected in increased friction factors. The surface
dimensional data that are given in Tables 9-1 to 9-5. shown in Fig. 10-12 whistled above NR = 9,000 with an increase in friction factor.
The abscissa on each figure is the Reynolds number, NR = 4rhG/Js. In all cases, The dashed line represents the probable course of the friction-factor curve without
except for the matrix surfaces, G is based on minimum free-flow area A~, and 4rh is whistling. Since the whistling is an acoustic phenomenon and is affected by other
as defined by Eq. (1-4). For the matrix surfaces, G is based on ~Afr, an “effective” factors besides the Reynolds number, those test points markedly affected by the
free-flow area. The ordinate is used for two parameters: (1) the friction factor f in whistle are not considered to be significant. The tendency to whistle may in some
all cases defined by Eq. (1-5); (2) the heat transfer parameter, Stanton number times applications disallow the use of such surfaces unless suitable acoustic treatments are
Prandtl number to the 2/3 power, N~~Np~2/3 = (h/Gc~)(1tc~/k)2”3. developed [1, 2]. Other surfaces with serious whistle problems will be noted below.
The individual test points are indicated on the graphs for all the test results In Figs. 10-13 and 10-14, no best-interpretation curve is shown for the heat
obtained under the supervision of the authors. Test points shown as small circles (0) transfer test points at the low Reynolds-number end of the test range. These surfaces
were obtained during heat transfer tests (hot-core tests). Test points shown as crosses were tested by a transient technique, which is satisfactory in the turbulent-flow range
but does not yield valid results in laminar flow. Thus the best-interpretation curve
(x) are from friction-factor tests conducted with no core heating (cold-core tests);
The discrepancy noted in some cases between the hot-core and cold-core friction is shown only in the region of fully established turbulent flow.
factors (see, for example, Fig. 10-1) is due to temperature-dependent fluid-property In Fig. 10-17, it may be noted that severe whistle difficulty was encountered for
effects discussed in Chap. 4. Reynolds numbers above 5,000, with both the heat transfer and friction results
The solid lines drawn through the data points represent a best interpretation affected.
of the test data. It will be noted that the N~~Npr2”3 best-interpretation curve for the Figure 10-22 shows test results for a core made up of cylindrical tubes of square
steam-to-air tests lies somewhat above the test points, especially at high Reynolds cross section. A hot-water-to-air test system was used, and wall temperatures were
numbers. This arises from the fact that the test points were calculated from the raw measured directly so that no correction for water-side heat transfer resistance was
162 Compact Heat Exchangers Heat Transfer and Flow-friction Design Data 163

necessary. Two curves are shown for the heat transfer results, one with constant wall
temperature and the other with an approximately constant wall-to-air temperature
difference throughout the tubes. In all other tests the surfaces were at constant wall
temperature.
Some of the pin-fin surfaces (Figs. 10-70 to 10-72) whistled at the high Reynolds
number end of the test range. Especially severe whistle trouble was encountered with
surface PF 9(F) (Fig. 10-72), where the whistle was of great intensity at Reynolds
numbers above 4,000. Surface PF (1OF) (Fig. 10-73) gave whistle trouble also at low
Reynolds numbers.
The circular-fin-surface data in Figs. 10-75, 10-76, and 10-78 were obtained
from test cores constructed from bimetal tubes. The original test results showed
definite evidence of considerable contact heat transfer resistance between the inner
copper liner and the outer aluminum fin muff. The data in Fig. 10-77 were obtained Table 10-1. Heat Transfer and Friction Data for Flow Inside Circular and
from a core with copper tubes and integral copper spiraled fins; thus no contact re Flattened Circular Tubes
sistance existed. On the basis of the test results in Figs. 10-76 and 10-77, the magni ST-i FT-i FTD-i
tude of the contact resistance could be estimated; this estimation was used to correct
the heat transfer curves in Figs. 10-75 and 10-76, so that the data are then represen NR N~~Np~213 f NR N~~Np~2’3 f N~ N~~Np~2’3 f
tative only of the outer finned-tube-surface performance. Since this estimation was 15,000 0.00288 0.00668 15,000 . 15,000
only an approximation, the correction introduced a considerable additional experi 12,000 0.00300 0.00697 12,000 12,000
mental uncertainty into the data. For this reason, the NstNpr213 curves in Figs. 10-75 10,000 0.00310 0.00725 10,000 0.00292 0.00687 10,000 0.00356 0.00660
8,000 0.00314 0.00760 8,000 0.00298 0.00718 8,000 0.00378 0.00701
and 10-76 are shown as dashed rather than full lines, and the ±5 per cent experi
6,000 0.00294 0.00770 6,000 0.00305 0.00770 6,000 0.00409 0.00764
mental uncertainty quoted for the other test data does not apply. The effect of the
contact resistance on the data from surface CF 11.46 (Fig. 10-78) was so great that 5,000 0.00254 0.00725 5,000 0.00310 0.00820 5,000 0.00430 0.00807
4,000 0.00193 0.00635 4,000 0.00317 0.00895 4,000 0.00457 0.00878
no correction was attempted; thus only the friction factors are shown for this surface. 3,000 0.00202 0.00672 3,000 0.00291 0.00939 3,000 0.00494 0.00982
2,500 0.00229 0.00750 2,500 0.00272 0.00939 2,500 0.00520 0.01070
2,000 0.00269 0.00902 2,000 0.00310 0.0107 2,000 0.00540 0.0116
References 1,500 0.00334 0.01170 1,500 0.00381 0.0135 1,500 0.00503 0.0119
1,200 0.00399 0.01425 1,200 0.00453 0.0163 1,200 0.00475 0.0125
1. Putnam, A. A.: Flow Induced Noise in Heat Exchangers, Trans. ASME, vol. 81, p. 417, 1959. 1,000 0.00463 0.01680 1,000 0.00522 0.0191 1,000 0.00518 0.0136
2. Grotz, B. J., and F. R. Arnold: Flow-induced Vibrations in Heat Exchangers, Tech. Rept. 31, pre 800 0.00558 0.0206 800 0.00621 0.0232 800 0.00605 0.0158
pared under contract Nonr 225(23) (NR-065-104) for the Office of Naval Research, Department 600 0.00707 0.0266 600 0.00780 0.0296 600 0.00738 0.0191
of Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University, August, 1956.
500 500 0.00900 0.0346 500
400 400 400
300 300 300

A
I

~ Table 10-2. Heat Transfer and Friction Data for Flow Normal to Banks of Bare Tubes
NR N~~Npr2’3 f NR N~tNpr2”3 f NR N~~Np~2’3 f NR N~~Npr2’3 f
S 1.50—1.25(s) S 1.50—1.25 S 1.25—1.25 S 1.50—1.00

15,000 0.00632 0.0508 15,000 0.00690 0.0503 15,000 15,000


12,000 0.00698 0.0530 12,000 0.00753 0.0525 12,000 12,000
10,000 0.00755 0.0550 10,000 0.00808 0.0543 10,000 10,000
8,000 0.00832 0.0578 8,000 0.00883 0.0566 8,000 8,000
6,000 0.00941 0.0614 6,000 0.00987 0.0596 6,000 6,000
5,000 0.0102 0.0640 5,000 0.0106 0.0615 5,000 0.00778 0.0375 5,000
4,000 0.0112 0.0670 4,000 0.0116 0.0641 4,000 0.00850 0.0391 4,000 0.0111 0.0613
3,000 0.0127 0.0702 3,000 0.0129 0.0675 3,0ô0 0.00950 0.0415 3,000 0.0124 0.0652
2,500 0.0137 0.0725 2,500 0.0138 0.0700 2,500 0.0102 0.0430 2,500 0.0134 0.0680
2,000 0.0149 0.0750 2,000 0.0151 0.0728 2,000 0.0111 0.0450 2,000 0.0147 0.0713
1,500 0.0166 0.0780 1,500 0.0169 0.0768 1,500 0.0124 0.0477 1,500 0.0164 0.0761
1,200 0.0178 0.0800 1,200 0.0184 0.0800 1,200 0.0136 0.0498 1,200 0.0180 0.0799
1,000 0.0189 0.0812 1,000 0.0198 0.0828 1,000 0.0146 0.0518 1,000 0.0193 0.0833
800 0.0201 0.0827 800 0.0216 0.0860 800 0.0159 0.0540 800 0.0213 0.0874
600 600 0.0241 0.0907 600 0.0178 0.0572 600 0.0239 0.0932
500 500 0.0258 0.0940 500 0.0191 0.0593 500 0.0257 0.0972
400 400 400 0.0208 0.0620 400
300 300 300~ 0.0233 0.0658 300

S 1.50—1.50 S 2.00—1.00 S 2.50—0.75 I 1.50—1.25(s)

15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000


12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000
10,000 0.00809 0.0593 10,000 10,000 10,000 0.00752 0.0505
8,000 0.00888 0.0619 8,000 0.0108 0.0982 8,000 0.01060 0.1000 8,000 0.00820 0.0525
6,000 0.00997 0.0653 6,000 0.0122 0.104 6,000 0.01175 0.1036 6,000 0.00900 0.0549
5,000 0.0107 0.0674 5,000 0.0132 0.108 5,000 0.0126 0.1065 5,000 0.00958 0.0558
4,000 0.0117 0.0701 4,000 0.0145 0.112 4,000 0.0136 0.1100 4,000 0.01020 0.0562

3,000 0.0132 0.0740 3,000 0.0164 • 0.118 3,000 0.0152 0.1145 3,000 0.01080 0.0554
2,500 0.0142 0.0755 2,500 0.0177 0.122 2,500 0.0162 0.1175 2,500 0.01095 0.0535
2,000 0.0155 0.0769 2,000 0.0194 0.128 2,000 0.0176 0.1180 2,000 0.01075 0.0497
1,500 0.0174 0.0790 1,500 0.0219 0.135 1,500 0.0195 0.1200 1,500 0.00960 0.0410
1,200 0.0190 0.0803 1,200 0.0241 0.141 1,200 0.0212 0.1213 1,200 0.00778 0.0331
1,000 0.0204 0.0818 1,000 0.0261 0.146 1,000 0.0227 0.1220 1,000 0.00750 0.0281
800 0.0224 0.0834 800 0.0286 0.152 800 0.0246 0.1230 800 0.00790 0.0265
600 600 0.0323 0.160 600 0.0273 0.1250 600
500 500 500 500
400 400 400 400
300 300 300 300

I 1.50—1.25 I 1.25—1.25 FT-2 FTD-2

15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000


12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000
10,000 0.00715 0.0483 10,000 10,000 10,000 0.00580 0.0248
8,000 ~ 0.00790 0.0501 8,000 0.00580 0.0364 8,000 8,000 0.00611 0.0248
6,000 0.00892 0.0511 6,000 0.00654 0.0373 6,000 6,000 0.00646 0.0248
5,000 0.00960 0.0515 5,000 0.00706 0.0380 5,000 5,000 0.00660 0.0248
4,000 0.01050 0.0519 4,000 0.00777 0.0387 4,000 0.00490 0.0190 4,000 0.00661 0.0248
3,000 0.0520 3,000 0.0397 3,000 0.00481 0.0184 3,000 0.00655 0.0248
2,500 0.0516 2,500 0.0401 2,500 0.00450 0.0175 2,500 0.00640 0.0248
2,000 0.0483 2,000 0.0410 2,000 0.00447 0.0177 2,000 0.00611 0.0249
1,500 0.0401 1,500 0.0420 1,500 0.00500 0.0195 1,500 0.00588 0.0259
1,200 0.0328 1,200 0.0429 1,200 0.00590 0.022 1 1,200 0.00639 0.0274
1,000 0.0301 1,000 0.0436 1,000 0.00678 0.0245 1,000 0.00714 0.0297
800 800 0.0444 800 0.00809 0.0278 800 0.00836 0.0337
600 600 0.0456 600 0.0101 0.0329 600 0.01020 0.0395
500 500 0.0459 500 0.0117 0.0368 500 0.01160 0.0439
400 400 0.0450 400 400
300 300 0.0421 300 300
Table 10-3. Heat Transfer and Friction Data for Plain Plate-fin Surfaces
NE N~~Npr213 f N~ N~tNpr213 f N~ N~~Np~2/3 f
2.0 3.01 3.97
60,000 0.00228 0.00549 45,000 0.00233 0.00602 35,000 0.00246 0.00595
50,000 0.00237 0.00562 40,000 0.00239 0.00608 30,000 0.00254 0.00605
40,000 0.00248 0.00579 30,000 0.00254 0.00630 25,000 0.00263 0.00620
30,000 0.00264 0.00601 25,000 0.00264 0.00645 20,000 0.00276 0.00638
25,000 0.00274 0.00616 20,000 0.00277 0.00667 15,000 0.00291 0.00667
20,000 0.00288 0.00638 15,000 0.00295 0.00700 12,000 0.00302 0.00695
15,000 0.00305 0.00672 12,000 0.00310 0.00732 10,000 0.00316 0.00720
12,000 0.00320 0.00703 10,000 0.00322 0.00762 8,000 0.00330 0.00761
10,000 0.00333 0.00734 8,000 0.00336 0.00808 6,000 0.00348 0.00826
8,000 0.00347 0.00778 6,000 0.00355 0.00886 5,000 0.00357 0.00880
6,000 0.00363 0.00847 5,000 0.00366 0.00950 4,000 0.00367 0.00963
5,000 0.00373 0.00904 4,000 0.00373 0.01045 3,000 0.00367 0.01110
4,000 0.00379 0.01023 3,000 0.00368 0.01190 2,500 0.00357 0.01230

5.3 6.2 9.03


15,000 15,000 15,000 0.00255 0.00708
12,000 12,000 0.00303 0.00708 12,000 0.00265 0.00740
10,000 0.00373 0.00764 10,000 0.00310 0.00735 10,000 0.00273 0.00763
8,000 0.00397 0.00806 8,000 0.00317 0.00768 8,000 0.00283 0.00799
6,000 0.00427 0.00870 6,000 0.00325 0.00807 6,000 0.00296 0.00842
5,000 0.00448 0.00913 5~000 0.00330 0.00838 5,000 0.00304 0.00870
4,000 0.00477 0.00978 4,000 0.00333 0.00875 4,000 0.00310 0.00903
3,000 0.00515 0.0108 3,000 0.00326 0.00923 3,000 0.00310 0.00980
2,500 0.00535 0.0115 2,500 0.00301 0.00958 2,500 0.00318 0.0106
2,000 0.00554 0.0127 2,000 0.00312 0.0103 2,000 0.00347 0.0122
1,500 0.00571 0.0146 1,500 0.00371 0.0127 1,500 0.0042 1 0.0152
1,200 0.00606 0.0167 1,200 0.00435 0.0152 1,200 0.00499 0.0182
1,000 0.00654 0.0189 1,000 0.00496 0.0176 1,000 0.00575 0.0214
800 0.00728 0.0228 800 0.00581 0.0211 800 0.00692 0.0262
600 0.00851 0.0299 600 600

500 500 500


400 400 400
300 300 300
11.1 11.11(a) 14.77

15,000 15,000 15,000


12,000 12,000 12,000
10,000 0.00314 0.00878 10,000 0.00288 0.00768 10,000 0.00310 0.00920
8,000 0.00333 0.00923 8,000 0.00303 0.00807 8,000 0.00326 0.00955
6,000 0.00356 0.00971 6,000 0.00324 0.00862 6,000 0.00352 0.0101
5,000 0.00372 0.00991 5,000 0.00338 0.00900 5,000 0.00367 0.0106
4,000 0.00390 0.0103 4,000 0.00353 0.00958 4,000 0.00389 0.0112
3,000 0.00412 0.0112 3,000 0.00368 0.0105 3,000 0.00417 0.0123
2,500 0.00424 0.0119 2,500 0.00373 0.0112 2,500 0.00435 0.0133
2,000 0.00436 0.0139 2,000 0.00375 0.0119 2,000 0.00456 0.0147
1,500 0.00444 0.0149 1,500 0.00420 0.0137 1,500 0.00495 0.0173
1,200 0.00471 0.0169 1,200 0.00505 0.0166 1,200 0.00538 0.0202
1,000 0.00515 0.0190 1,000 0.00586 0.0198 1,000 0.00585 0.0231
800 0.00599 0.0228 800 0.00704 0.0243 800 0.00663 0.0274
600 0.00733 0.0294 600 0.00890 0.0319 600 0.00791 0.0346
500 0.00840 0.0350 500 0.0103 0.0380 500 0.00898 0.0403
400 400 400
300 300 300
15.08 19.86 10.27T
15,000 15,000 10,000 0.00295 0.00723
12,000 12,000 9,000 0.00299 0.00740
10,000 10,000 8,000 0.00303 0.00763
8,000 8,000 0.00320 0.00851 7,000 0.00310 0.00790
6,000 0.00308 0.00882 6,000 0.00337 0.00900 6,000 0.00318 0.00826
5,000 0.00310 0.00900 5,000 0.00348 0.00931 5,000 0.00328 0.00871
4,000 0.00309 0.00925 4,000 0.00363 0.00972 4,000 0.00341 0.00945
3,000 0.00309 0.00970 3,000 0.00382 0.0104 3,000 0.00372 0.01085
2,500 0.00322 0.01040 2,500 0.00395 0.0112 2,000 0.00445 0.01370
2,000 0.00352 0.0 1205 2,000 0.00410 0.0123 1,500 0.00523 0.01645
oo~
001’
88~O•0 8c800o ~lL0OO ooc
1T’~O0 12L000 1’19000 009
~:81o.o ~9cooo 881’OOO 008
81’lOO 191’OOO L01’OOO 000’1
T’T’~1O0 T’6~0O0 ~cgooo O0~’l
010100 c~ooo 96~O0O ooc’i
~L4000 cc~ooo L~000 0o0’~
~900O 8~OO•0 ooc’~
£9c00o 1’T’~O0O 000’1
1’6c000 06~OO0 000’1’
0L900O T~O00 ooo’c
OOLOO0 T’~000 ~;i~oo’o 000’9
689000 6~000 ~1~0o.0 000’8
8c9000 9~O00 86~OO0 000’01
11900O 1’1~000 L8~000 000’~1
000’ci

I
c,~~NlsN
0
01’
cL8o0 00~ 88800 00~ £L900 oo~
~6c00 oo~ c6co0 8~100 00~ 091’OO £61 TOO 001~
91’T’OO 001’ 81’T’OO 0ll0•0 001’ ic~oo ~T’6000 001’
6c~oo 9c8000 ooc 19~00 ~6000 ooc 98~00 ~8L000 ooc
IOEO0 c~Looo 009 ~o1oo ~08000 009 0T’~00 0L9000 009
8~00 18c00o 008 0~0.0 £T’9000 008 c81oo 6~c000 008
~8100 ~8T’000 000’1 68100 c1’cooo 000’l £cloo oc1’00o 000’1
i.cioo 811’OOO 00~’1 ~910’0 181’OOO 00~’T T’~100 irn~ooo 00~’l
clToo 61’lOOO ooc’i c6~10.o 811’OOO ooc’i c9110.0 1’c~ooo ooc’i
81100 T’6~000 000’~ coiioo 9cEOo0 000’~ 186000 ~1~00.0 000’~
60100 000’g 186000 £6~000 ooo’~ 118000 LL~000 000’~
000’T’ 168000 000’T’ c8Looo 000’1’
ooo’c 000’c ooo’c

000’9 000’9 000’9


000’L 000’L 000’L
000’8 000’8 000’8
000’6 000’6 000’6
000’01 000’01 000’01
1cT~91’ £~0~ ~L6Lc~
0c900 00~ 11800 009100 00~ 00~
~oo o~ol00 oo~ 99c00 c81T00 00~ cEcoo cT~1oo 00~
6~00 96L00”0 001’ LgT~00 cc600o 001’ 11t’OO 086000 001’
c~oo oc900o ooc 6c~oo ci800o ooc 9~oO £1800O ooc
~E~00 igcooo 009 90~00 £1L000 009 £8~00 6~L000 009
OLTO0 81’T’OOO 008 8~00 cccowo 008 0~00 68c000 008
T’T’IOO 6L~000 000’1 c6Too £6T’OOO 0001 18100 861’OOO 000’1
c~ioo 8~000 00~’1 OLTO0 1T’T’OOO 00~’1 6cToo L~T’000 00~’T
880100 1’6~000 ooc’i cL1’1oo 88~000 ooc’i oc~Too 6LEOO0 ooc’i
~96000 89~000 000’~ c8~10”0 9T’~000 000’~ c1’TTO’O 6~000 00O’~
cL8000 £9~000 0001 8~1100 ocgooo 0001 9c6000 L1~00•0 0001
c~80o0 18~000 0001 c1’0100 T’T’~000 0001 c8800o 0~000 0001
608000 18~000 ooo’c 086000 £~000 ooo’c 9c8000 £~ooo ooo’c
06L000 000’9 8~6000 ~~000 000’9 618000 ~1000 000’9
000’L 188000 ~1~000 0001 ~8L000 LT~000 000’L
000’8 1c8000 ~0~000 000’8 ccLooo 60~000 000’8
000’6 0~8000 000’6 0~L000 ~0~000 000’6
000’01 000’0~ 91L000 1’6~OOO 000’0T
19691 L00~1 1T’6IT

oo~ oo~ oo~


~9900 00~ Lc1’00 £1100 001’ 001’
iicoo 6~100 001’ ~LE00 096000 ooc co1’O’o O~6OOO ooc
611’00 101100 ooc T’1~00 T’1~8000 009 £T’~00 ç18000 009
Lc~oo 688000 009 ~1’~00 ~L9000 008 1’9~0’0 ~99000 008
8L~00 L61.000 008 ~6T00 L9cooo 000’T ci~oo ~9cooo 000’T
8~00 ~89000 000’1 L9100 1.6T’OOO 00~’1 ~8100 161’OOO 00~’1
c6100 809000 00~’1 ~T’100 £H’OOO ooc’i TcIoo O~T’OOO ooc’i
1L~0T 9861 80cT
I I I
(panuiniod) s~~J.ms U!:J~~4~Td U~Id £oJ ~1~1~I UOt~O1J~4 pu~ i~jsu~jj~ W~H •~-OI ~ cD
Table 10-4. Heat Transfer and Friction Data for Louvered Plate-fin Surfaces
NR N~~Np~213 f NR N~~Np~2/3 f NR f NR NstNpr213 f NR f
1—6.06 1(a)—6.06 1—6.06 4(a)—6.06 1—8.7

10,000 0.00551 0.0331 10,000 0.00638 0.0494 10,000 0.00568 0.0300 10,000 0.00598 0.0400 10,000 0.00542 0.0297
8,000 0.00593 0.0340 8,000 0.00688 0.0510 8,000 0.00605 0.0310 8,000 0.00645 0.0413 8,000 0.00583 0.0306
6,000 0.00651 0.0354 6,000 0.00760 0.0531 6,000 0.00655 0.0322 6,000 0.00714 0.0432 6,000 0.00640 0.0319
5,000 0.00690 0.0363 5,000 0.00810 0.0547 5,000 0.00690 0.0332 5,000 0.00760 0.0447 5,000 0.00678 0.0328
4,000 0.00738 0.0375 4,000 0.00878 0.0568 4,000 0.00734 0.0347 4,000 0.00809 0.0463 4,000 0.00737 0.0340
3,000 0.00805 0.0394 3,000 0.00970 0.0596 3,000 0.00791 0.0366 3,000 0.00895 0.0491 3,000 0.00794 0.0359
2,500 0.00849 0.0406 2,500 0.0102 0.0620 2,500 0.00829 0.0381 2,500 0.00941 0.0511 2,500 0.00835 0.0374
2,000 0.00900 0.0426 2,000 0.0110 0.0646 2,000 0.00875 0.0402 2,000 0.0100 0.0540 2,000 0.00885 0.0394
1,500 0.00970 0.0461 1,500 0.0119 0.0696 1,500 0.00948 0.0438 1,500 0.0108 0.0588 1,500 0.00951 0.0430
1,200 0.0104 0.0496 1,200 0.0127 0.0745 1,200 0.0102 0.0474 1,200 0.0113 0.0634 1,200 0.0103 0.0472
1,000 0.0112 0.0532 1,000 0.0138 0.0795 1,000 0.0109 0.0512 1,000 0.0118 0.0680 1,000 0.0112 0.0515
800 0.0124 0.0587 800 0.0140 0.0860 800 0.0118 0.0571 800 0.0122 0.0752 800 0.0126 0.0585
600 0.0144 0.0682 600 0.0149 0.0962 600 0.0133 0.0667 600 0.0128 0.0880 600 0.0149 0.0700
500 0.0160 0.0755 500 500 500 500 0.0169 0.0793
400 400 400 400 400
300 . —~ 300 300 300 300

*(a)—8.7 ~-11.i ~-1i.1 +(b)-1i.1 1-11.1

10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 0.00548 0.0242


8,000 0.00630 0.0340 8,000 8,000 0.00666 0.0309 8,000 0.00701 0.0349 8,000 0.00588 0.0253
6,000 0.00690 0.0395 6,000 0.00690 0.0350 6,000 0.00728 0.0333 6,000 0.00761 0.0364 6,000 0.00645 0.0271
5,000 0.00730 0.04 10 5,000 0.00740 0.0367 5,000 0.00771 0.0351 5,000 0.00800 0.0375 5,000 0.00684 0.0283
4,000 0.00790 0.0428 4,000 0.00802 0.0390 4,000 0.00825 0.0374 4,000 0.00853 0.0390 4,000 0.00793 0.0300

3,000 0.00870 0.0420 3,000 0.00899 0.0426 3,000 0.00901 0.0408 3,000 0.00922 0.0412 3,000 0.00811 0.0326
2,500 0.00950 0.0470 2,500 0.00960 0.0452 2,500 0.00954 0.0461 2,500 0.00972 0.0430 2,500 0.00861 0.0346
2,000 0.00980 0.0497 2,000 0.0103 0.0491 2,000 0.0102 0.0464 2,000 0.0103 0.0456 2,000 0.00930 0.0375

1,500 0.0106 0.0550 1,500 0.0113 0.0553 1,500 0.0112 0.0512 1,500 0.0112 0.0502 1,500 0.0102 0.0423
1,200 0.0113 0.0580 1,200 0.0122 0.0610 1,200 0.0119 0.0558 1,200 0.0120 0.0550 1,200 0.0111 0.0469
1,000 0.0121 0.0620 1,000 0.0130 0.0662 1,000 0.0125 0.0600 1,000 0.0128 0.0595 1,000 0.0121 0.0513
800 0.0131 0.0680 800 0.0142 0.0738 800 0.0137 0.0670 800 0.0139 0.0662 800 0.0135 0.0528
600 0.0145 0.0790 600 0.0161 0.0848 600 0.0155 0.0772 600 0.0157 0.0780 600 0.0156 0.0700

500 0.0154 0.0890 500 0.0177 0.0925 500 0.0168 0.0850 500 0.0170 0.0870 500 0.0170 0.0796
400 400 400 400 400
300 300 300 300 300

1(b)—ill 1—11.1 ~— 11.1 1(b)—i 1.1

10,000 10,000 10,000 0.00432 0.0151 10,000 0.00440 0.0156


8,000 0.00590 0.0257 8,000 0.00557 0.0220 8,000 0.00462 0.0158 8,000 0.00469 0.0168
6,000 0.00650 0.c(27 1 6,000 0.00604 0.0233 6,000 0.00508 0.0170 6,000 0.00510 0.0175

5,000 0.00694 0.0281 5,000 0.00640 0.0242 5,000 0.00537 0.0178 5,000 0.00537 0.0183
4,000 0.00752 0.0296 4,000 0.00680 0.0255 4,000 0.00576 0.0190 4,000 0.00572 0.0 194
3,000 0.00835 0.0319 3,000 0.00739 0.0271 3,000 0.00630 ~0.0208 3,000 0.00621 0.0213
2,500 0.00889 0.0336 2,500 0.00777 0.0283 2,500 0.00663 0.0222 2,500 0.00655 0.0227
2,000 0.00960 0.0363 2,000 0.00825 0.0299 2,000 0.00711 0.0244 2,000 0.00699 0.0248

1,500 0.0105 0.0406 1,500 0.00888 0.0332 1,500 0.00787 0.0289 1,500 0.00762 0.0288
1,200 0.0112 0.0442 1,200 0.00950 0.0368 1,200 0.00859 0.0314 1,200 0.00831 0.0313
1,000 0.0119 0.0483 1,000 0.0104 0.0410 1,000 0.00928 0.0370 1,000 0.00894 0.0362
800 0.0130 0.0550 800 0.0117 0.0474 800 0.0103 0.0427 800 0.00981 0.0416
600 0.0148 0.0659 600 0.0137 0.0570 600 0.0119 0.0516 600 0.0112 0.0500

500 0.0161 0.0741 500 0.0150 0.0641 500 0.0132 0.0580 500 0.0122 0.0565
400 400 400 400
300 300 300 300
Table 10-5. Heat Transfer and Friction Data for Strip-fin Plate-fin Surfaces
NR Ns~Np~213 NStNpr2I3 f N~ NStNpr2I3 f
1(s)—ill ~—12.22 4—15.2
10,000 10,000 0.00629 0.0394 10,000
8,000 0.00525 0.0197 8,000 0.00688 0.0413 8,000
6,000 0.00580 0.0209 6,000 0.00770 0.0440 6,000 0.00850 0.0487
5,000 0.00620 0.0218 5,000 0.00828 0.0458 5,000 0.00896 0.0498
4,000 0.00669 0.0231 4,000 0.00903 0.0487 4,000 0.00959 0.0516
3,000 0.00740 0.0253 3,000 0.0101 0.0530 3,000 0.01040 0.0540
2,500 0.00789 0.0272 2,500 0.0108 0.0560 2,500 0.01110 0.0558
2,000 0.00850 0.0298 2,000 0.01 19 0.0607 2,000 0.01177 0.0584
1,500 0.00940 0.0348 1,500 0.0133 0.0680 1,500 0.01267 0.0628
1,200 0.0102 0.0394 1,200 0.0146 0.0752 1,200 0.01327 0.0676
1,000 0.0109 0.0438 1,000 0.0156 0.0826 1,000 0.01373 0.0726
800 0.0122 0.0500 800 0.0171 0.0942 800 0.01427 0.0800
600 0.0139 0.0595 600 0.0192 0.113 600 0.01520 0.0913
500 0.0155 0.0665 500 0.0205 0.130 500 0.01580 0.1010
400 400 400 0.01675 0.1145
300 300 300 0.01810 0.1390

4—13.95 4—11.94(D) 4—15.4(D)


8,000 0.0628 6,000 0.00510 0.0167
6,000 0.01110 0.0650 9,000 0.0122 5,000 0.00537 0.0175
5,000 0.01170 0.0664 8,000 0.0123 4,000 0.00570 0.0186
4,000 0.01250 0.0684 7,000 0.00452 0.0126 3,000 0.00617 0.0202
3,000 0.0137 0.0712 6,000 0.00471 0.0131 2,500 0.00650 0.0213
2,500 0.0 144 0.0733 5,000 0.00492 0.0137 2,000 0.00692 0.0228
2,000 0.0155 0.0765 4,000 0.00522 0.0146 1,500 0.00756 0.0255
1,500 0.0168 0.0817 3,000 0.00575 0.0162 1,200 0.00809 0.0283
1,200 0.0181 0.0870 2,000 0.00682 0.0 198 1,000 0.00864 0.0314
1,000 0.0192 0.0927 1,500 0.00744 0.023 1 800 0.00952 0.0362

800 0.0204 0.1020 1,200 0.00830 0.0265 600 0.01107 0.0443


600 0.0223 0.1170 1,000 0.00911 0.0306 500 0.01227 0.0507
500 0.0233 0.131 800 0.01045 0.0347 400 0.01407 0.0601
400 0.0247 0.154 600 0.01255 0.0429 300 0.0169 0.0757
500 0.01415 0.0493
400 0.0166 0.0592
300 0.0205 0.0758
200
4-12.18(D) 4—15.75(D) 4—20.06(D)

9,000 0.00512 0.0183 9,000 9,000


8,000 0.00530 0.0184 8,000 8,000
7,000 0.00557 0.0189 7,000 0.0199 7,000
6,000 0.00591 0.0196 6,000 0.00619 0.0203 6,000
5,000 0.00635 0.0203 5,000 0.00649 0.0211 5,000
4,000 0.00692 0.0218 4,000 0.00713 0.0227 4,000 0.0289
3,000 0.00782 0.0241 3,000 0.00813 0.0248 3,000 0.00855 0.0309
2,000 0.00933 0.0290 2,000 0.00992 0.0294 2,000 0.00995 0.0349
1,500 0.01065 0.0341 1,500 0.01125 0.0339 1,500 0.01115 0.0387
1,200 ~ 0.0119 0.0388 1,200 0.0124 0.0386 1,200 0.0120 0.0422
1,000 0.0129 0.0438 1,000 0.0136 0.0440 1,000 0.0129 0.0459
800 0.0141 0.0490 800 0.0154 0.0499 800 0.0144 0.0520
600 0.0169 0.0592 600 0.0185 0.0608 600 0.0173 0.0621
500 0.0191 0.0695 500 0.0209 0.0690 500 0.0197 0.0699
400 0.0023 0.0808 400 0.0819 400 0.0810
300 0.0278 0.1025 300 0.1025 300 0.0995
200 0.1480 200 0.1425 200
4—19.82(D) 4—16.12(D) 4—16.00(D)
5,000 0.00721 0.0310
4,000 0.00764 0.0315
3,000 0.00822 0.0334
2,500 0.00859 0.0357
2,000 0.00908 0.0379 6,000 0.0289
Table 10-5. Heat Transfer and Friction Data for Strip-fin Plate-fin Surfaces (continued)
NR N~~Npr2’3 f I f NstNp~2’3 f
1—19.82(D) 1—16.12(D) 4-16.00(D)

1,500 0.00987 0.0400 5,000 0.00778 0.0295


4,000 0.0390 1,200 0.01060 0.0429 4,000 0.00838 0.0307
3,000 0.00880 0.0420 1,000 0.01123 0.0464 3,000 0.00925 0.0328
2,000 0.01015 0.0450 800 0.01205 0.0517 2,000 0.01085 0.0373
1,500 0.01155 0.0492 600 0.01352 0.0607 1,500 0.01205 0.0418
1,200 0.0128 0.0535 500 0.0150 0.0679 1,200 0.0132 0.0460
1,000 0.0139 0.0577 400 0.0176 0.0781 1,000 0.0142 0.0502
800 0.0154 0.0640 300 0.0226 0.0937 800 0.0159 0.0568
600 0.0180 0.0747 600 0.0188 0.0675
500 0.0202 0.0832 500 0.0209 0.0765
400 0.0955 400 0.0892
300 0.1175 300 0.1115
200 0.1585 200

4-16.12(T)
5,000 0.0358
4,000 0.00705 0.0370
3,000 0.00773 0.0386
2,500 0.00820 0.0397
2,000 0.00880 0.0416
1,500 0.00967 0.0440
1,200 0.01045 0.0464
1,000 0.01122 0.0496
. 800 0.01225 0.0552
600 0.01395 0.0644
500 0.0155 0.0721
400 0.0179 0.0830
300 0.0219 0.1003

Table 10-6. Heat Transfer and Friction Data for Wavy-fin Plate-fin Surfaces
11.44—*W 11.5—lw 17.8—lW

NR NgtNpr213 f N~ N~~Np~2’3 I NR NstNpr2~’3 f


10,000 0.00686 0.0331
8,000 0.00746 0.0357
6,000 0.0083 1 0.0398
8,000 0.00712 0.0359 5,000 0.00890 0.0427
6,000 0.00794 0.0401 4,000 0.00970 0.0467
5,000 0.00846 0.0430 3,000 0.01077 0.0525 5,000 0.00675 0.0293
4,000 0.00920 0.0469 2,500 0.01155 0.0567 4,000 0.00740 0.0320
3,000 0.01025 0.0524 2,000 0.0126 0.0625 3,000 0.00835 0.0358
2,500~ 0.0110 0.0563 1,500 0.0140 0.0704 2,500 0.00900 0.0385
2,000 0.0119 0.0615 1,200 0.0150 0.0779 2,000 0.00982 0.0421
1,500 0.0132 0.0691 1,000 0.0158 0.0845 1,500 0.0110 0.0478
1,200 0.0144 0.0758 800 0.0167 0.0926 1,200 0.0120 0.0530
1,000 0.0153 0.0819 600 0.0178 0.0135 1,000 0.0129 0.0579
800 0.0165 0.0888 500 0.0185 0.111 800 0.0142 0.0643
600 0.0175 0.0984 400 0.0194 0.118 600 0.0158 0.0738
500 0.0179 0.1045 500
400 400
300 300
Table 10-7. Heat Transfer and Friction Data for Pin-fin Plate-fin Surfaces
NR N~~Np~2”3 f Nr~ N~~Np~2/3 f N~tNpr213 f
AP-1 AP-2 PF-3

8,000 0.00808 0.0815


6,000 0.00905 0.0793
5,000 0.00970 0.0780
4,000 0.0105 0.0762 4,000 0.0130 0.166
3,000 0.0116 0.0741 3,000 0.0145 0.165 2,000 0.00645
2,500 0.0123 0.0725 2,500 0.0155 0.164 1,500 0.00720
2,000 0.0134 0.0707 2,000 0.0168 0.158 1,200 0.00784 0.0373
1,500 0.0152 0.0708 1,500 0.0183 0.151 1,000 0.00840 0.0383
1,200 0.0161 0.0718 1,200 0.0190 0.150 800 0.00912 0.0399
1,000 0.0175 0.0755 1,000 0.0200 0.151 600 0.01020 0.0430
800 0.0183 0.0800 800 0.0209 0.156 500 0.01085 0.0454
600 600 0.0218 0.170 400 0.0118 0.0491
500 500 0.0222 0.180 300 0.0132 0.0551
400 400 250 0.0600
300 300 200 0.0673

PF-4(F) PF-9(F) PF-10(F)

25,000 0.00740 15,000 0.0488 0.00757


20,000 0.00800 12,000 0.0493 0.00826
17,000 0.00842 10,000 0.0503 0.00890
8,000 0.0128 0.153 15,000 0.00880 8,000 0.0530 0.00973
6,000 0.0144 0.153 12,000 0.00951 6,000 0.0573 0.0 1085

5,000 0.0156 0.153 10,000 0.0101 5,000 0.0589 0.01172


4,000 0.0171 0.153 8,0Q~~ 0.0108 4,000 0.0603 0.0128
3,000 0.0192 0.156 6,000 0.0120 3,000 0.0626 0.0142
2,500 0.0207 0.160 5,000 0.0128 2,500 0.0640 0.0157
2,000 0.0227 0.167 4,000 0.0137 0.0692 2,000 0.0640 0.0170

1,500 0.0255 0.175 3,000 0.0152 0.0718 1,500 0.0605 0.0170


1,200 0.0279 0.182 2,500 0.0161 0.0737 1,200 0.0561 0.0174
1,000 0.0301 0.189 2,000 0.0173 0.0760 1,000 0.0577 0.0182
800 0.0330 0.198 1,500 0.0191 0.0800 800 0.0670 0.0198
600 1,200

500 1,000
400 900
300 800

13.95(P)

12,000 0.01168
10,000 0.00503 0.01220
8,000 0.00547 0.01285
6,000 0.00600 0.01386
5,000 0.00631 0.0146
4,000 0.00660 0.0155
3,000 0.00695 0.0169
2,500 0.00708 0.0178
2,000 0.00700 0.0187
1,500 0.00736 0.0207
1,200 0.00817 0.0232
1,000 0.00893 0.0257
800 0.01010 0.0295
600 0.01180 0.0357
500 0.0132 0.0407
7

Table 10-8. Heat Transfer and Friction Data for Flow Normal to Banks of Finned Tubes
NR N~~Np~2’3 f NstNpr2’3 f NstNp~2”3

CF-7.34 CF-8.72 CF-8.72C

10,000 0.00388 0.0304 10,000 0.0306 10,000


8,000 0.00465 0.0313 8,000 0.0314 8,000 0.00638 0.0347
6,000 0.00500 0.0326 6,000 0.00645 0.0326 6,000 0.00685 0.0359
5,000 0.00547 ~ 0.0334 5,000 0.00685 0.0333 5,000 0.00727 0.0368
4,000 0.00609 0.0348 4,000 0.00740 0.0344 4,000 000785 0.0381
3,000 0.00701 0.0365 3,000 0.00820 0.0360 3,000 0.00879 0.0401
2,500 0.00770 0.0379 2,500 0.00880 0.0371 2,500 0.00945 0.0418
2,000 0.00860 0.0395 2,000 0.00960 0.0388 2,000 0.01035 0.0440
1,500 0.00990 0.0420 1,500 0.0108 0.0412 1,500 0.01170 0.0470
1,200 0.01105 0.0441 1,200 0.0119 0.0433 1,200 0.01285 0.0495
1,000 0.01210 0.0461 1,000 0.0129 0.0453 1,000 0.01390 0.0520
800 0.01350 0.0490 800 0.0143 0.0483 800 i.01504 0.0551
600 0.01506 0.0530 600 0.0165 0.0532 600 0.01760 0.0597
500 500 0.0180 0.0572 500 0.01915 0.0630
400 400 400
300 300 300

CF-11.46 9.68—87 9.1—737-S

10,000 0.0255 10,000 0.00326 0.0106 10,000 0.00389 0.0133


8,000 0.0260 8,000 0.00339 0.0108 8,000 0.00417 0.0142
6,000 0.0267 6,000 0.00359 0.0113 6,000 0.00460 0.0156
5,000 0.0272 5,000 0.00369 0.0116 5,000 0.00493 0.0167
4,000 0.0278 4,000 0.00385 0.0122 4,000 0.00539 0.0183
3,000 0.0290 3,000 0.00405 0.0133 3,000 0.00608 0.0206

2,500 0.0300 2,500 0.00411 0.0142 2,500 0.00656 0.0223


2,000 0.0314 2,00k 0.00427 0.0155 2,000 0.00726 0.0247
1,500 0.0337 1,500 0.00477 0.0174 1,500 0.00831 0.0284
1,200 0.0358 1,200 0.00536 0.0196 1,200 0.00934 0.0320
1,000 0.0379 1,000 0.00600 0.0219 1,000 0.01030 0.0354
800 0.0408 800 0.0070 1 0.0256 800 0.01175 0.0402
600 0.0450 600 0.00861 0.032 1 600 0.01377 0.0476
500 0.048 1 500 0.00982 0.0376 500 0.01526 0.0531
400 0.0522 400 0.01150 0.0463 400
300 300 300

9.68—.87-R 9.29—.737-SR 11 .32—737-SR

10,000 0.00390 0.0183 10,000 0.00514 0.0206 10,000 0.00453 0.0180


8,000 0.00412 0.0191 8,000 0.00546 0.0219 8,000 0.00468 0.0192
6,000 0.00445 0.0201 6,000 0.00590 0.0236 6,000 0.00533 0.0207
5,000 0.00468 0.0208 5,000 0.00620 0.0247 5,000 0.00563 0.0218
4,000 0.00498 0.0217 4,000 0.00660 0.0261 4,000 0.00602 0.0232
3,000 0.00543 0.0228 3,000 0.00712 0.0280 3,000 0.00655 0.0253
2,500 0.00573 0.0238 2,500 0.0075 1 0.0294 2,500 0.00690 0.0269
2,000 0.00615 0.0255 2,000 0.00802 0.0315 2,000 0.00739 0.0290
1,500 0.00676 0.0284 1,500 0.00885 0.0346 1,500 0.00816 0.0323
1,200 0.00727 0.0309 1,200 0.00964 0.0380 1,200 0.00892 0.0353
1,000 0.00772 0.0333 1,000 0.01045 0.0416 1,000 0.00968 0.0384
800 0.00832 0.0366 800 0.01 176 0.0472 800 0.0108 0.0429
600 0.00920 0.0422 600 0.01390 0.0569 600 0.0127 0.0505
500 0.01000 0.0470 500 500 0.0142 0.0565
400 0.01128 0.0550 400 400 0.0163 0.0652
300 300 300

cc
Table 10-9. Heat Transfer and Friction Data for Crossed-rod Matrices
NR Ns5Np~2’3 N~ N5~Np~2”3 N~ N5~Npr213 I N~ N5~Np~2”3 I N~ N5~Np~213

In-line stacking

p = 0.832 p = 0.766 p = 0.675 p = 0.602 p = 0.500

120,000 0.00784 0.225 80,000 0.00804 0.223 60,000 0.00820 0.213 40,000 0.00865 0.185 30,000 0.00860 0.153
100,000 0.00815 0.227 60,000 0.00872 0.230 40,000 0.00940 0.226 30,000 0.00930 0.190 20,000 0.00995 0.163
80,000 0.00858 0.228 40,000 0.00990 0.239 30,000 0.0103 0.235 20,000 0.0107 0.202 15,000 0.0111 0 171
60,000 0.00922 0.230 30,000 0.0110 0.243 20,000 0.0119 0.248 15,000 0.0120 0.213 10,000 0.0129 0.183
40,000 0.0105 0.232 20,000 0.0126 0.252 15,000 0.0132 0.257 10,000 0.0140 0.228 8,000 0.0140 0.190
30,000 0.0115 0.234 15,000 0.0142 0.257 10,000 0.0154 0.267 8,000 0.0155 0.234 6,000 0.0156 0.200
20,000 0.0133 0.236 10,000 0.0166 0.264 8,000 0.0167 0.273 6,000 0.0174 0.241 4,000 0.0183 0.212
15,000 0.0147 0.240 8,000 0.0182 0.268 6,000 0.0188 0.280 4,000 0.0206 0.251 3,000 0.0204 0.222
10,000 0.0170 0.247 6,000 0.0203 0.273 4,000 0.0221 0.290 3,000 0.0233 0.259 2,000 0.0239 0.233
8,000 0.0185 0.250 4,000 0.0236 0.278 3,000 0.0247 0.298 2,000 0.0276 0.267 1,500 0.0270 0.242
6,000 0.0206 0.256 3,000 0.0264 0.283 2,000 0.0294 0.310 1,500 0.0311 0.274 1,000 0.0324 0.252
4,000 0.0242 0.267 2,000 0.0304 0.295 1,500 0.0332 0.321 1,000 0.0370 0.291
3,000 0.0268 1,500 0.0337 0.308 1,000 0.0397 0.347
2,000 0.0306 1,000 0.0388 0.330 800 0.0436 0.361
1,500 0.0337 600 0.0492 0.386

Staggered stacking

p = 0.832 p = 0.766 p = 0.675 p = 0.602 p = 0.500

120,000 0.00840 0.356 80,000 0.00798 0.253 60,000 0.00704 0.173 40,000 0.00745 0.142 30,000 0.00806 0.132
100,000 0.00880 0.370 60,000 0.00888 0.267 40,000 0.00832 0.189 30,000 0.00825 0.150 20,000 0.00932 0.142
80,000 0.00942 0.383 40,000 . 0.0101 0.292 30,000 0.00935 0.200 20,000, 0.00973 0.164 15,000 0.0104 0.151
60,000 0.0103 0.401 30,000 0.0111 0.308 20,000 0.0110 0.217 15,000 0.0110 0.175 10,000 0.0121 0.165
40,000 0.0119 0.429 20,000 0.0130 0.330 15,000 0.0124 0.230 10,000 0.0130 0.019 8,000 0.0132 0.174
30,000 0.0133 0.443 15,000 0.0145 0.342 10,000 0.0148 0.249 8,000 0.0142 0.198 6,000 0.0147 0.185
20,000 0.0155 0.463 10,000 0.0173 0.361 8,000 0.0162 0.258 6,000 0.0160 0.209 4,000 0.0172 0.200
15,000 0.0175 0.478 8,000 0.0190 0.371 6,000 0.0185 0.271 4,000 0.0189 0.223 3,000 0.0192 0.210
10,000 0.0208 0.498 6,000 0.0215 0.383 4,000 0.0222 0.290 3,000 0.0212 0.235 2,000 0.0225 0.222
8,000 0.0227 0.510 4,000 0.0256 0.401 3,000 0.0255 0.307 2,000 0.0250 0.251 1,500 0.0254 0.231

6,000 0.0253 0.530 3,000 0.0293 0.419 2,000 0.0310 0.331 1,500 0.0286 0.263 1,000 0.0305 0.243
4,000 0.0292 0.561 2,000 0.0351 0.452 1,500 0.0356 0.351 1,000 0.0351 0.280
3,000 0.0328 1,500 0.0401 0.480 1,000 0.0431 0.383
2,000 0.0390 1,000 0.0488 0.527 800 0.0480 0.401
1,500 0.0451 600 0.0550 0.430

Random stacking

p = 0.832 p = 0.817 p = 0.766 p = 0.725 p = 0.675

100,000 0.0086 0.280 80,000 0.0089 0.277 80,000 0.0081 0.232 80,000 0.0074 0.215 80,000 0.0070
80,000 0.0093 0.290 60,000 0.0098 0.290 60,000 0.0090 0.243 60,000 0.0083 0.230 60,000 0.0079 0.190
60,000 0.0103 0.301 40,000 0.01 14 0.308 40,000 0.0105 0.267 40,000 0.0099 0.248 40,000 0.0093 0.207
40,000 0.0117 0.315 30,000 0.0126 0.313 30,000 0.0118 0.280 30,000 0.0110 0.260 30,000 0.0103 0.218
30,000 0.0130 0.323 20,000 0.0145 0.330 20,000 0.0137 0.297 20,000 0.0120 0.274 20,000 0.0120 0.230
20,000 0.0150 0.334 10,000 0.0190 0.346 10,000 0.0178 0.318 10,000 0.0165 0.296 10,000 0.0155 0.254
10,000 0.0196 0.350 8,000 0.0208 0.350 8,000 0.0194 0.320 8,000 0.0180 0.300 ‘ 8,000 0.0170 0.262
8,000 0.0215 0.354 6,000 0.0232 0.356 6,000 0.0215 0.329 6,000 0.0200 0.307 6,000 0.0187 0.270
6,000 0.0241 0.360 4,000 0.0272 0.362 4,000 0.0251 0.339 4,000 0.0231 0.317 4,000 0.0220 0.283
4,000 0.0283 0.370 3,000 0.0308 0.371 3,000 0.0281 0.343 3,000 0.0258 0.322 3,000 0.0247 0.290
3,000 0.0319 0.379 2,000 0.0364 0.381 2,000 0.0330 0.355 2,000 0.0300 0.349 2,000 0.0289 0.299
2,000 0.0379 1,000 0.0500 1,000 0.0443 0.375 1,000 0.0400 1,000 0.0382 0.330
1,000 0.0520 800 0.0560 800 0.0490 0.381 800 0.0442 800 0.0420 0.350
800 0.0580 600 0.0640 600 0.0560 600 0.0509 600 0.0479 0.384
600 0.0670 400 0.0620 400 0.0580
300 0.0720 300 0.0670

p = 0.602 p = 0.500

60,000 0.154 30,000 0.00838 0.157


40,000 0.0086 0.169 20,000 0.00980 0.170
30,000 0.0094 0.180 15,000 0.0110 0.179
20,000 0.0108 0.195 10,000 0.0129 0.194
10,000 0.0138 0.218 8,000 0.0140 0.200
8,000 0.0150 0.227 6,000 0.0156 0.210
6,000 0.0167 0.237 4,000 0.0183 0.222
4,000 0.0195 0.250 3,000 0.0204 0.229
3,000 0.0219 0.257 2,000 0.0239 0.238
2,000 0.0255 0.263 1,500 0.0270 0.244
1,000 0.0340 0.286 1,000 0.0324 0.252
800 0.0375 0.303
600 0.0422 0.331
400 0.05 10
300 0.0590
200 .0.0730
-S
Cf.)
C)
C) I-’

‘-C

~0 ‘1 -~ = -s — C~) LCC
c~pp~p p

CD

0
C
a a (9 C — C’) CJC
— ~

C?w~D — C’) C C
CD — 0
55 o o 0000000000 Co
= DC ~1

DC a- 9c CD DC
a ~0
-Il
~ C~ D~
~ 0 0
-S
CD CD Ci)
C — — 0~
CD
CD II CD C-’
0. 0
II DC NC
a 0-
SC
0
‘5 DC 0-
~ 0 DC 0
OiL S
0~ C.) ‘O
C DC C-’
C C)
r~) 0 Co
o 0
p9~9ppPp~9~~ 05 0
C —0000000000 ©
— cc 0.) C.CC CDC (C) C’) Cs) — ~—0
~, C’) (5 — cc 0.) CC.) c~ cc c~ —i ~DC — 0)
DC cii ci’ co,DCocc
C p
cC)
Sc
N)
-J go
0 0
Cs
(JC
p
cC)
cc

CD
C-’
CD

CD

ci’cCs——9PPCPPPP
i~z b
bi . o ci’ ~s ,~ (C) C.C) (C)
go
ci’ 0 o cc
s -J — —5 ~DC C
Co
CD
Ci)
—1-

Fig. 10—2. Flow inside flattened circular tubes, surface FT—i. Fig. 10—3. Flow inside dimpled flattened tubes, surface FTD—1.

j06~±~3.6O~T~HF.iI4

1020

)015
HN~
1.010

1.008 ~, -
~ III ~
z clf
~ BEST NTERPRETATION
t006 ~ —

).005~
t004—

1.003 Z___
NR 5 iO~ (4rh G/)J)
>oc~o 0.50.6 0.8 IC) 15 2C) ~fl 40 ~nn an ion

Tube ID before flattening 0.234 in. Tube ID before flattening DC 0.234 in.
Tube inside dimension perpendicular to flats DC 0.114 in. Tube inside dimension perpendicular to flats DC 0.114 in.
Tube inside dimension parallel to flats 0.302 in. Tube inside dimension parallel to flats DC 0.302 in.
Length of flat along tube 3.60 in. Length of flat along tube 3.60 in.
Length of section from flat—to—circular—to—flat cross section Length of section from flat—to—circular—to—flat cross section 0.345 in.
0.345 in.
Dimple depth 0.03 in.
Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 4r, 0.01433 ft
Minimum distance between dimples DC 0.5 in.
Minimum free-flow area per tube 0.0002195 ft2
Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 4r5 0.Olll6ft
Minimum free—flow area per tube DC 0.000169 ft2
Fig. 10—4. Flow normal to a staggered tube bank Fig. 10—5. Flow normal to a staggered tube bank (transient tests),
(steady—state tests)n surfoce S 1.50—1.25(a). surface 5 1.50—1.25.

090- — —T---— — —
I I
I
I I
I I II
I I

jT0 — —— I ii LI

z ~EE
—4———--——.p~..
~ ~ ~

°~°~ i ~ )40 — — —

~ BEST INTERPRETATION ~ ( -B ESTINTERPRErATION


030 — — — — — — 030 — cc
IS TUBE ROWS ~W

020— — — — — — — — — — 020 czç — ~


015— ~ — — — — 015 — — — ~
a—.... ~ B

~
~
z -.~-

Lift)
z
~ -010 — — —
.5—
-- -
-S
c)— —-Q
008Z— 008 E
~ ~
006—I-- — — — — — 006——
I NRxld~ l4r~G/)J) NRxIo~ (4~hG)).fl
c16 Q8J 1.0 1.5 2.0 30 4.0 60 80~ 0 15 0.4 06 u~ 1.0 1.5 2.0 3.0 40 60 B.Oj~ 0 15

Tube outside diameter 0.250 in. Tube outside diameter = 0.375 in.
Hydraulic diameter, 4rh 0.0166 ft Hydraulic diameter, 4Th 0.0 249 ft
Free—flow area/frontal area, a = 0.333 Free—flow area/frontal area, a = 0.333
Heat transfer area/total volume, a 80.3 ft2/ft3 Heat transfer area/total volume, a = 53.6 ft~/ft3
Note: Minimum free—flow area is in spaces transverse to flow. Note: Minimum free—flow area is in spaces transverse to flow.

Fig. 10—6. Flow normal to a staggered tube bank (transient tests), Fig. 10—7. Flow normal to a staggered tube bank (transient tests),
surface S 1.25—1.25. surface S 1.50—1.00.

0 C
008

006
005
3EST INTERPRETATION - -~ 37 E—
004 ________
—-—-
i
/~
— -( ) A
0.5625
003
~/
~:1&c.. x~ji.s
002 S — — — —

-~ ~
-
~
-— ~
-)~.I~
-

~
xIO (4r~G/jJ)
)Ol NR”l03 (4rhG/p) —
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.5 2.0 3.0 4.0 ~0 60
04 05 06 08 10 15 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.060 80 100

Tube outside diameter 0.375 in. Tube outside diameter = 0.375 in.
Hydraulic diameter, 4rh= 0.0125ft Hydraulic diameter, 4rh 0.0196ft
Free—flow area/frontal area, a- 0.200 Free—flow area/frontal area, a 0.333
Heat transfer area/total volume, a 64.4 ft2/ft3 Heat transfer area/total volume, a 67.lft2/ft3
Note: Minimum free—flow area is in spaces transverse to flow. Note: Minimum free—flow area is in spaces transverse to flow.
a)

Fig. 10—8. Flow normal to a staggered tube bank Fig. 10—9. Flow normal to a staggered tube bank (transient tests),
(transient tests), surface S 1.50—1.50. surface S 2.00—1.00.

Tube outside diameter = 0.375 in.


Hydraulic diameter, 4rh= 0.0298ft Tube outside diameter = 0.375 in.
Free—flow area/frontal area, a 0.333 Hydraulic diameter, 4r,, = 0.0327 ft
Heat transfer area/total volume, ~ 44.8 ft2/ft3 Free—flow area/frontal area, ‘a = 0.414
Note: Minimum free flow area is in spaces transverse to flow. Heat transfer area/total volume, o = 50.3 ft2/ft3
Note: Minimum free—flow area is in diagonal spaces.

Fig. 10—10. Flow normal to a staggered tube bank (transient tests), Fig. 10—11. Flow normal to staggered tube banks. (Data of Grimison.)
surface S 2.50—0.75.

~LJ~
0.30

0.20

0.10
0.080
TO SCALE FOR CASE 0
0.060
~~---
0,040 SPACING X~ 5,
A .25 2.00
8 .50 2.00
B C
0.020 A —=C 2.00 .50
0 2.00 2.00

0.010 0.
I I I I II
0.008 z
0.006 z
Ce
HLUL
0
040 10.0 20.0 40.0 00.0
Tube outside diameter = 0.375 in.
Hydraulic diameter, 4rh 0.0271 ft
Free—flow area/frontal area, a 0.366
Heat transfer area/total volume, a 53.6 ft2/ft3
Note: Minimum free—flow area is in diagonal spaces.

I-’
I.

Fig. 10—12. Flow normal to an in—Hne tube bank (steady—state tests), Fig. 10—13. Flaw normal to an in—line tube bank
surface I l.5O—l.25(a). (transient tests), surface 11.50—1.25.

.060 I I I I I
.050

~::
.040 ~~bLTh+

-
.030
AN AN AN AN

.020
BE~ I ‘ITERE ~ ‘\- ~ X~.I.50

~ ~63”
.015 ° ~

‘,, a_

~tH~
.010
z
a
C)
(9
008 ...‘
-~

.006
N8xl0’ (4l~G/,lJ) I I I
0.8 1.0 1.5 2.0 3.0 4.0 50 6.0 8.0 10.0 15.0

Tube outside diameter — 0.250 in. Tube outside diameter = 0.375 in.
Hydraulic diameter, \4rh ,0.166 ft Hydraulic diameter, 4r,, = 0.0248 ft
Free-flow area/frontal area, ~ = 0.338 Free-flow area/frontal area, ~ 0.333
Heat transfer area/total volume, a = 80.4 ft2/ft3 Heat transfer area/total volume, a~= 53.6 ft2/ft3

Fig. 10—14. Flow normal to an in—line tube bank Fig. 10-15. Flow normal to in-line tube banks. (Data of Grimison.)
(transient tests), surface 11.25—1.25.

:~-~--d~
0.30

0.20
:ø—~—~
010 ~
-

0.080
TO SCALE FOR CASE 0
0.060

0.040 A SPACING x( X(
0.030 A 1,25 150
B 1.25 2.00
0.020 C .50 ISO
A~ 0
D (50 2.00

0.010
0.008 Z
(0
0,006 Z

Tube outside diameter 0.375 in. 0,00~0—1—~I0 ~ NR X io~


0.0 20.0 40.0 100.0
Hydraulic diameter, 4r,, 0,01237ft
Free—flow area/frontal area, ~ 0.200
Heat transfer area/total volume, a = 64.4 ft2/ft3

I
cc
Fig. 10—16. Flow normal to in—line tube banks. (Data of Grimison.)
Heat Transfer and Flow-friction Design Data 191

0.30
=e- ~-E1~—~-
0.20

0.10
0.080
C
:et~
TO SCALE FOR CASE C
Fig. 10—18. Flow normal to dimpled flattened tubes,
surface FTD—2.
0.030- SPACING Xt X~
A 2.00 1.25
0.020- B 2.00 1.50
C 2.00 2.00
A
0.010 £~ I I I I II III I
0.008
lz
0.006

0.004 -1--———
2.0
—~-
4.0 6.0 10.0
X
20.0
IO~
40.0 100.0
Ill I

Fig. 10—17. Flow normal to flattened tubes, surface FT—2.

Tube 00 before flattening = 0.247 in.


Distance between centers parallel to flow = 0.344 in.
Distance between centers perpendicular to flow 0.222 in.
Tube dimension parallel to flow = 0.315 in.
Tube dimension perpendicular to flow = 0.127 in.
Distance between spacing plates 4.15 in.
Length of flat along tube 3.60 in.
Dimple depth 0.03 in.
Minimum distance between dimples along tube = 0.5 in.
Tube OD before flattening 0.247 in. Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 4rh 0.Ol6ft
Distance between centers parallel to flow = 0.344 in. Total transfer area/total volume, a = 108 ft2/ft3
Distance between centers perpendicular to flow = 0.222 in. Free-flow area/frontal area, e 0.423
Tube dimension parallel to flow = 0.315 in.
Tube dimension perpendicular to flow = 0.127 in.
Distance between spacing plates = 4.15 in.
Length of flat along tube = 3.60 in.
Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 4rh = 0.0 1433 ft
Total transfer area/total volume, a = 108 ft2/ft3
Free-flow area/frontal area, ~ 0.386

190
Fig. 10—19. Plain plate—fin surface 2.0. Fig. 10—20. Plain plate—fin surface 3.01.

Fin pitch 2.0 per in. Fin pitch = 3.01 per in.
Plate spacing, b 0.750 in. Plate spacing, b 0.750 in.
Fin length = 12.0 in. Fin length 12.0 in.
Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 4rh = 0.0474 ft Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 4rh 0.03546 ft
Fin metal thickness 0.032 in., aluminum Fin metal thickness 0.032 in., aluminum
Total heat transfer area/volume between plates, i3 76.1 ft2/ft° Total heat transfer area/volume between plates, (3 = 98.3 ft2/ft3
Fin area/total area 0.606 ,— Fin area/total area = 0.706

Fig. 10—21. Plain plate—fin surface 3.97. Fig. 10—22. Plain plate—fin surface 4.00.

-k-~--~
o•25öl ~
015 — — — — — — —, — — —

:6~~~:Z
005 — ~ -BEST NTERPRETATION —

z
004~
C.; — — ~— — -.
0
.003.≥
~-

-002——--—--————————

NA lO~ (4rh 6/ia)


2 3 4 5 6 8 0 15 20 30 40 50

Fin pitch 3.97 per in. Square tube dimensions = 0.18 x 0.18 in.
Plate spacing, b 0.750 in. Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 4r~ 0.015 ft
Fin length 12.0 in. Fin area/total area 0.500
Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 4rh 0.0282 ft test points for constant wall—to—fluid temperature difference tests
Fin metal thickness 0.032 in., aluminum o test points for constant wall temperature tests
Total heat transfer area/volume between plates, f3 119.4 ft2/ft3 x test points for isothermal friction factor tests
Fin area/total area = 0.766 Note: The test core for this surface was built up from square tubes
rather than from plates and fins. Therefore, the data on fin
thickness and area per unit of volume is not pertinent.
cc
Fr9. 10—23. Plain plate—fin surface 5.3. Fig. 10—24. Plain plate—fin surface 6.2.

~zEEE ~
0.030—--

0.020— — - —~ — — - -

0.015-—

~..

?2~z
0OO8——-~
. - )
—-----~--———- BEST INTERPRETATION
-

).0O~ ~ — — - -

0.005 Z — — —~- — — —

0.00’~ — - — —

~
3.003— — -~ — - -

~ NR “ l0~ (4rhG/,sJ)
0.4 0.5 0.6 Q~ 1.0 1.5 20 3.0 40 5.0 6.0 80 100
Fin pitch 5.3 per in. Fin pitch = 6.2 per in.
Plate spacing, b = 0.470 in. Plate spacing, b = 0.405 in.
Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 4rh 0.02016ft Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 4r5 = 0.0182ft
Fin metal thickness = 0.006 in., aluminum Fin metal thickness 0.010 in., aluminum
Total transfer area/volume between plates, ~3 188 ft2/ft3 Total transfer area/volume between plates, i3 = 204 ft2/ft3
Fin area/total area = 0.719 Fin area/total area = 0.728

Fig. 10—25. Plain plate—fin surface 9.03. Fig. 10—26. Plain plate—fin surface 11.1.

fr-O.25~
.050 — — — L/4rh- 20.6

.040 - —

030—i-
,\

.020 — — — -i—-— — — — — —

::z
:v*
,~ ~ ~BESTlNTERPRETAfl0N

:!:: 0.5 0.6


NR xI0~ (4,~G/)J)
0~ 1.0 .5 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Fin pitch 9.03 per in.
Fin pitch 11.1 per in.
Plate spacing, b 0.823 in.
Plate spacing, b 0.250
Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 4r5 0.01522 ft Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 4rh 0.01012 ft
Fin metal thickness 0.008 in., aluminum Fin metal thickness 0.00 6 in., aluminum
Total transfer area/volume between plates, f3 244 ft2/ft3 Total transfer area/volume between plates, ~ 367 ft2/ft°
Fin area/total area 0.888 Fin area/total area 0.756
Fig. 10—27. Plain plate—fin surface 11.11(a). Fig. 10—28. Plain plate—fin surface 14.77.

.050 - — —~- - - ——
.040 - — - — T

.030 - ~
- — AIR
SLOW O.OO8~

~ L/4rh 57.8 H0.48”~


.020~-—----~~--—--——-—————--

;;:
~06 -~2 — — - - OEST INTERPRETATION

~-~-
•°°4~~~

.003 — - -~ NRxIO3(4rG/~) .— —: -.

04 06 08 0 15 20 30 40 60 80 ~O 150

Fin pitch 11.11 per in. Fin pitch = 14.77 per in.
Plate spacing, b = 0.48 in. Plate spacing, b 0.330 in.
Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 4rh 0..01153ft Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 4rh 0.00848 ft
Fin metal thickness 0.0118 in., copper I
Fin metal thickness 0.006 in., aluminum
Total transfer area/volume between plates, 3 312 ft2/ft3 Total transfer area/volume between plates, f3 = 420 ft2/ft3
Fin area/total area 0.854 Fin area/total area = 0.844

Fig. 10—29. Plain plate—fin surface 15.08.


Fig. 10-30. Plain plate—fin surface 19.86.

Fin pitch 15.08 per in.


Fin pitch = 19.86 per in.
Plate spacing, b 0.418 in.
Plate spacing, b = 0.250 in.
Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 4rh 0.00876 ft
Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 4r,, 0.00615 ft
Fin metal thickness = 0.006 in., aluminum
Fin metal thickness 0.006 in., aluminum
Total transfer area/volume between plates, i3 414 ft~/ft3
Total transfer area/volume between plates, (3 = 561 ft2/ft3
Fin area/total area 0.870
Fin area/total area 0.849
Fig. 10—31P Plain plate—fin surface 10.27 T. Fig. lO—32.t Plain plate—fin surface 11.94 T.

(L/4r~).I6.6 ~

.060
----~--
.050 - — -0 — — - .I947~
‘S0
.040 --------—‘

.030
gO
.020
0

.015 —I- s— —

n
.010 -
.rO
.008 -

.006 -
z NTERPI1ET a i uN
a
.005 -
- C)
C,
004-

N R1 41hG //J.l x

.3 4 .5 ~ .8 l.0

Fin pitch = 10.27 per in. Fin pitch = 11.94 per in.
Plate spacing, b = 0.544 in. Plate spacing, b = 0.249 in.
Fin length flow direction = 5.00 in. Fin length flow direction = 5.00 in.
Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 4r~= 0.01259 ft Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 4r~= 0.009396ft
Fin metal thickness 0.010 in., aluminum Fin metal thickness = 0.006 in., aluminum
Total heat transfer area/volume between plates, i3 = 289.93 ft2/ft3 Total heat transfer area/volume between plates, (3 = 393.0 ft2/ft3
Fin area/total area = 0.863 Fin area/total area = 0.769
tOast interpretation to the friction data does not pass through the cold—core test points because of a separate correction for K0, K€ as functions of P4.

Fig. 10—33Y Plain plate—fin surface 12.00 T. Fig. lO~34i Plain plate—fin surface 16.96 T.

.256 K

I
.080 ~LJ4~) 73.8

.1179”
.‘J.NJ~ ~— -‘ç~ ~;- -

.03~_...---~-N~,-

.020— —

0
.015 Ku - — -
K
‘<cm

.010 —

.008— S
r)
...
~
.006— °~ -. — — —.~mT INTERPREl
a-
.005— z — —

.004—

.003—
~.
C,
C,
~.———
— —
~EEE~E:
.,.,.. — — P (=4r~G//u)x l0~ ~
I I I I I
5 .4 .5 .6 .8 LO 3

Fin pitch 12.00 per in. Fin pitch 16.96 per in.
Plate spacing, b 0.250 in. Plate spacing, b a 0.256 in.
Fin length flow direction 2.50 in. strips (two 5.00 in.) Fin length flow direction a 5.00 in.
Flow passage hydraulic diaweter, 40H= 0.009412 ft Flow passage hydraulic diaweter, 4rh a 0.0056524 ft
Fin matal thickness 0.006 in., nickel Fin wetal thickness 0.006 in., aluminum
Total heat transfer area/volume between plates, ~3 392.7 ft2/ft3 Total heat transfer area/volume between plates, (3 607.81 ft2/ft3
Fin area/total area 0.773 Fin area/total area 0.861
~ tSee footnote, p. 198.
Fig. 10—35~ Plain plate—fin surface 25.79 T. Fig. lO-36.~ Plain plate—fin surface 30.33 T.

.100 ‘L/4r)~52
h - -

.080

.060
.0659~~
.050 —

.020
N
.015

.010 —
N~ -~ -
V 0

.008 —~
-— —--s
.006— — —~3!ST NTERPF ETAT ION -

.005 —
(0 ~—--
.004— ~-

.003 -~
-3
NR 4rhI.~ 10
.002
I I I I
.2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .8 1.0 4 ~
Fin pitch 25.79 per in. Fin pitch 30.33 per in.
Plate spacing, b 0.204 in. Plate spacing, b 0.345 in.
Splitter symmetrically located Splitter symmetrically located
Fin length flow direction 2.50 in. Fin length flow direction = 2.50 in.
Flow passage hydra~ilic diameter, 4~h = 0.00377 1 ft Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 4rh= 0.004009 ft
Fin metal thickness 0.006 in., aluminum Fin metal thickness = 0.004 in., aluminum
Splitter metal thickness 0.006 in. Splitter metal thickness = 0.006 in.
Total heat transfer area/volume between plates, f3 855.58 ft2/ft° Total heat transfer area/volume between plates, ~3 = 812.51 ft2/ft3
Fin area (including splitter)/total area = 0.884 Fin area (including splitter)/total area = 0.928
tSee footnote, p. 198.

Fig. 1O—37~ Plain plate—fin surface 46.45 T. Fig. 10-38. Louvered plate-fin surface 3/8-6.06.

.100 (L/4r,,):83.O 0.~;9.i0l~


.080 4 -—

.060
0.0431
.050
~‘0
.040
)
.030
‘\

.020 ~—

.015 ~

.010 IC)
S..
.008 — N..
a
z ITERPRI
006 —

I
c:
C)
.005 — (0
5-
C
.004 —

.003 —

NR(~4rhG/,M)xI03 Fin pitch 6.06 per in.


.002 — —
Plate spacing, b 0.250 in.
.2 3 .4 .5.6 .8 1.0 I 2 5E
Louver spacing 0.375 in.
Fin pitch 46.45 per in. Louver gap 0.055 in.
Plate spacing, b 0.100 in. Fin gap 0.110 in.
Fin length flow direction = 2.63 in. Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 4Th 0.0 1460 ft
Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 4r5 0.002643 ft Fin metal thickness 0.006 in., aluminum
Fin metal thickness 0.00 2 in., stainless steel Total heat transfer area/volume between plates, ~ 256 ft2/ft3
Total heat transfer area/volume between plates, i3 1332.45 ft°/ft3 Fin area/total area 0.640
~ Fin area/total area 0.837
tSee footnote, p. 198
Fig. 10—39. Louvered plate-fin surface 3/8(a)—6.06. Fig. 10-40. Louvered plate-fin surface 1/2-6.06.

\—.055 .lIO~ —j.25” h


080— — — — — L. - -

~ -
060— — — - ,~

.050 — — - - ~ r—.50

.040— — — - s—
~
~ — — - —

.030—----—-------——
\ ~ .— .
—————--‘.~-

020— — — - - - - ~— — — - - - -

—BEST INT RPRETATION


015— — — — - - - — — — — - - - - —

~
0I0~—--~—~—--

~—~

005— — — —
——----—-—~—————--—-------

N8 l0~ (4rhG/p)
0.4 05 0.6 0.8 .0 .5 20

~0

40
— —

60
— - -

80 00
-

Fin pitch = 6.06 per in. Fin pitch = 6.06 per in.
Plate spacing, b 0.250 in. Plate spacing, b 0.250 in.
Louver spacing 0.375 in. Louver spacing = 0.50 in.
Fin gap = 0.035 in. Fin gap = 0.110 in.
Louver gap = 0.130 in. Louver gap 0.055 in.
Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 4Th 0.0 1460 ft Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 4rh = 0.01460 ft
Fin metal thickness = 0.006 in., aluminum Fin metal thickness 0.006 in., aluminum
Total transfer area/volume between plates, i3 256 ft2/ft3 Total heat transfer area/volume between plates, ~3 256 ft2/ft3
Fin area/total area 0.640 Fin area/total area 0.640

Fig. 10—41. Louvered plate—fin surface 1/2(a)—6.06. Fig. 10-42. Louvered plate—fin surface 3/8—8.7.

Fin pitch 6.06 per in. Fin pitch 8.7 per in.
Plate spacing, b 0.250 in. Plate spacing, b 0.250 in.
Louver spacing 0.50 in. Louver spacing 0.375 in.
Fin gap 0.035 in. Fin gap 0.060 in.
Louver gap 0.130 in. Louver gap 0.055 in.
Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 4rh 0.0 1460 ft Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 4rh 0.01196ft
Fin metal thickness 0.006 in., aluminum Fin metal thickness 0.006 in., aluminum
Total heat transfer area/volume between plates, i3 256 ft2/ft3 Total heat transfer area/volume between plates, ~3 307 ft2/ft3
~ Fin area/total area 0.640 Fin area/total area 0.705
‘~ Fig. 10—43. Louvered plate—fin surface 3/8(a)—8.7. Fig. 10—44. Louvered plate—fin surface 3/16—11.1.

I I
~ - - -~ I
.060—~ ~ ~T -
~
.050
- - - ~lJ875~

.040———---~—-—————~--~——---———
\
~

BES INTE 1PRE ATI N )


.020~—----7~~~--—---—-——----———
~—

015 ~. ~‘ - — — — - - -
=a.
z
-~
,.,
.010 ~. ~

~
.008~ — - - - -~ — - - -

.006 NR ~ IQ~ . (4rhG/p)


04 0.5 0.6 Q~ .0 1.5 2.0 3.0 4.0 6D 8000

Fin pitch 8.70 per in. Fin pitch 11.1 per in.
Plate spacing, b = 0.250 in. Plate spacing, b 0.250 in.
Louver spacing = 0.375 in. Louver spacing 0.1875 in.
Fin gap = 0.035 in. Fin gap = 0.035 in.
Louver gap 0.080 in. Louver gap 0.055 in.
Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 4rh = 0.01196 ft Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 4r,, 0.01012 ft
Fin metal thickness = 0.006 in., aluminum Fin metal thickness = 0.006 in., aluminum
Total heat transfer area/volume between plates, i3 = 307 ft2/ft3 Total heat transfer area/volume between plates, ~3 367 ft2/ft3
Fin area/total area = 0.705 Fin area/total area = 0.756

Fig. 10—45. Louvered plate—fin surface 1/4—11.1. Fig. 10—46. Louvered plate—fin surface 1/4(b)—11.1.

Fin pitch 11.1 per in. Fin pitch 11.1 per in.
Plate spacing, b 0.250 in. Plate spacing, b 0.250 in.
Louver spacing 0.250 in. Louver spacing 0.250 in.
Fin gap 0.035 in. Fin gap 0.035 in.
Louver gap 0.055 in. Louver gap 0.055 in.
Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 4rh 0.01012 ft Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 4r5 0.OlOl2ft
Fin metal thickness 0.00 6 in., aluminum Fin metal thickness 0.006 in., aluminum
Total heat transfer area/volume between plates, f~ 367 ft2/ft3 Total heat transfer area/volume between plates, i3 367 ft2/ft3
Fin area/total area 0.756 Fin area/total area 0.756
C,’
Fig. 10—47. Louvered plate—fin surface 3/8—11.1. Fig. 10—48. Louvered plate—fin surface 3/8(b)—11.1.

— — - - 0.25”
08-s----
~ ~
0.05 — - - “

E*
~ ~BEST INTERPRETATON.

~
0.01 k---- ~-~-———~—---

~
Q0O8~—---
~-~---- ~
Q0061— — - — ~.

aoo4—4-- — — NR x10! ~__(4rHG~P) — — — — -

O~4 j06 0.8 1.0 .5 2,0 3.0 4.0 60 8.0 10.0


Fin pitch = 11.1 per in. Fin pitch 11.1 per in.
Plate spacing, b 0.250 in. Plate spacing, b = 0.250 in.
Louver spacing = 0.375 in. Louver spacing 0.375 in.
Fin gap = 0.035 in. Fin gap = 0.035 in.
Louver gap 0.055 in. Louver gap 0.055 in.
Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 4rh 0.01012 ft Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 4rh = 0.OlOl2ft
Fin metal thickness = 0.006 in., aluminum Fin metal thickness 0.006 in., aluminum
Total heat transfer area/volume between plates, i3 = 367 ft2/ft3 Total heat transfer area/volume between plates, i3 367 ft2/ft3
Fin area/total area 0.756 Fin area/total area = 0.756

Fig. 10—49. Louvered plote—fin surface 1/2—11.1. Fig. 10—50. Louvered plate—fin surface 3/4—11.1.

Fin pitch 11.1 per in. Fin pitch 11.1 per in.
Plate spacing, b 0.250 in. Plate spacing, b 0.250 in.
Louver spacing 0.50 in. Louver spacing 0.75 in.
Fin gap 0.035 in. Fin gap 0.05 in.
Louver gap 0.055 in. Louver gap 0.04 in.
Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 4rh 0.01012 ft Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 4rh 0.01012 ft
Fin metal thickness 0.006 in., aluminum Fin metal thickness = 0.006 in., aluminum
Total heat transfer area/volume between plates, ~3 367 ft2/ft3 Total heat transfer area/volume between plates, ~3 367 ft2/ft3
~ Fin area/total area — 0.756 Fin area/total area 0.756
Fig. 10-51. Louvered plate-fin surface 3/4(b)-i1.1. Fig. 10—52. Strip—fin plate—fin surface 1/4(a)—i 1.1.

. I .

~~
.360—--— ~ H ~T
— —

340— — — — — — —

330
~
~=
%~
320— — — \ — — — —

~ ~— BE T rERPR TATI N
015— -~ — — — -

.0i0~~ct- — — ,~ — -~ — —
z - — — .~ — — — —

008~--- -

006≥-—-- ——

005 — — — N~ ~l0~ (4ij1G,~p) — —

0.4 05_0.6__0.8__tO 1.5__2.0 30__4.0 ~ go 10.0

Fin pitch 11.1 per in. Fin pitch = 11.1 per in.
Plate spacing, b = 0.250 in. Plate spacing, b = 0.25 in.
Louver spacing = 0.75 in. Fin length = 0.25 in.
Fin gap 0.05 in. Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 4rh = 0.OlOl2ft
Louver gap 0.04 in. Fin metal thickness 0.006 in., aluminum
Flow passage hydraulic dian~eter, 4rh 0.01012 ft Total heat transfer area/volume between plates, ~ = 367 ft2/ft3
Fin metal thickness = 0.006 in., aluminum Fin area/total area = 0.756
Total heat transfer area/volume between plates, ~3 367 ft2/ft3
Fin area/total area 0.756

Fig. 10—53. Strip—fin plate—fin surface 3/32—12.22. Fig. 10—54. Strip—fin plate—fin surface 1/8—15.2.
~TH~ %~‘-~ ~
. 150 ~ —1 .066-4E !“

~ ~-~Q082’-~E-E-
I -

080- — — : iii
- - -

~°~z~: 060- — — — — -~ 1=..~ -~ —

050- — — — — — —~

.040— -—- — — — —

0 N_ 030 - — — INTERPRETATION —
.02— ~BEST INTERPRI

.0l5~--- ~_--_-_-_-- .020- — — — — — —

~
0I5~c~——~~
~
.0l~ — - z
—~-- - —-. — -
= C—
.008~— — - ~- — —~ — (a
.0I0~————

.006-I—-- — — SIC-: (4rhG/p) — — — .OO8—L--— ~ x10°(4r~G/,u)


.005 I 05 Q6 ct8 LO 1.5 20 3.0 4.0 50 6.0 80 10.0 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.5 2.0 ~0 4.0 5.0 6.0 80

Fin pitch = 12.22 per in. Fin pitch 15.2 per in.
Plate spacing, b 0.485 in. Plate spacing, 6 0.414 in.
Fin length 0.094 in. Fin length 0.125 in.
Fins staggered symmetrically Fins staggered symmetrically
Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 4rh 0.01120 ft Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 0.00868 ft
Fin metal thickness 0.004 in., copper Fin metal thickness 0.006 in., aluminum
Total heat transfer area/volume between plates, 340 ft2/ft3 Total heat transfer area/volume bet~ieen plates, 417 ft2/ft3
Fin area/total area 0.862 Fin area/total area 0.873
Note: Fin leading and trailing edges slightly scarfed from fin cutting Note: Fin leading and trailing edges slightly scarfed from fin cutting
C
operation. Friction factors may be lower with clean fins. operation. Friction factors may be lower with clean fins.
cc
Fig. 10—55. Strip—fin plate—fin surface 1/8—13.95. Fig. 10—56. Strip—fin plate—fin surface 1/2—11.94(D).
C

Fin pitch = 13.95 per in. Fin pitch = 11.94 per in.
Pinte npncing, b = 0.375 in. Plate spacing, 6 0.237 in.
Fin length = 0.125 in. Splitter symmetrically located
Flow passage hydraulic diarieter, 4r,, = 0.00879 ft Fin length flow direction = 0.500 in.
Fin metal thickness = 0.010 in., aleminum Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 4r,, 0.007436 ft
Total heat transfer area/volume between platea, = 381 ft2/ft3 Fin metal thickness = 0.006 in., aluminum
Fin area/total area = 0.840 Splitter metal thickness = 0.006 in.
Note: The fin surface area on the leading and trailing edges of the Total heat transfer area/volume between platen, ~3 = 461.0 ft2/ft3
fins have not been included in area computations.
Fin area (including nplitter)/total area = 0.79 6

Fig. 10—57. Strip—fin plate—fin surface 1/4—15.4(D). Fig. 10—58. Strip—fin plate—fin surface 1/6—12.18(D).

Fin pitch 15.4 finn per in. Fin pitch 12.18 per in.
Plate spacing, b 0.206 in. Plate spacing, b 0.353 in.
Splitter symmetrically located Splitter symmetrically located
Fin length 0.250 in. Fin length flow direction 0.178 in.
Flow passage hydranlic diameter, 4r,, 0.00527 ft Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 4r,, 0.00 8648 ft
Fin metal thickness = 0.006 in., aluminum Fin metal thickness 0.004 in., aluminum
~ Total heat transfer area/volume between platen, ~3 642 ft2/ft° Splitter metal thickness 0.00 6 in.
Fin area (including nplitter)/total area 0.816 Total heat transfer area/volume between plates, (3 422.4 ft2/ftu
Fin area (including splitter)/total area 0.847
Fig. 10—59. Strip—fin plate—fin surface 1/7—15.75(D). Fig. 10—60. Strip—fin plate—fin surface 1/8—20.06(D).

Fin pitch = 15.75 pnr in. Fin pitch = 20.06 per in.
Plate spacing, b = 0.304 in. Plate spacing, b 0.2Olin.
Splitter symmetrically located Splitter symmetrically located
Fin length flow direction = 1/7 in. Fin lenath flow direction = 0.125 in.
Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 4r5 = 0.006790 ft Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 4Th 0.004892 ft
Fin metal thickness = 0.004 in., aluminum Fin metal thickness = 0.004 in., aluminum
Splitter thickness = 0.006 in. Splitter metal thickness = 0.006 in.
Total heat transfer area/volume between plates, f3 526 ft2/ft5 Total heat transfer area/volume between plates, ~3 = 698 ft2/ft3
Fin area (including splitter)/total area = 0.859 Fin area (including splitter)/total area = 0.843

Fig. 10—61. Strip—fin plate—fin surface 1/8—19.82(D).


Fig. 10—62. Strip—fin plate—fin surface 1/8—16.12(D).

Fin pitch 19.82 per in.


Fin pitch = 16.12 per in.
Plate spacing, b 0.205 in.
Plate spacing, b 0.206 in.
Splitter symmetrically located
Splitter symmetrically located
Fin length flow direction 0.125 in.
Fin length 0.125 in.
Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 4r,, = 0.005049 ft
Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 4r,, 0.00509 ft
Fin metal thickness 0.004 in., nickel
Fin metal thickness 0.006 in., aluminum
Splitter metal thickness 0.006 in.
Total heat transfer area/volume between plates, i~ 660 ft2/ft3
p~ Total heat transfer area/volume between plates, i3 680 ft2/ft3 Fin area (including splitter)/total area = 0.823
I
c~ Fin area (including splitter )/total area = 0.841
Fig. 10—63. Strip—fin plate—fin surface 1/8—16.00(D). Fig. 10—64. Strip—fin plate—fin surface 1/8—16.12(T).

Fin pitch 16.00 per in. Fin pitch = 16.12 per in.
Plate spacing, b 0.255 in. Plate spacing, b = 0.314 in.
Splitter symmetrically located Splitters evenly spaced
Fin length flow direction = 0.125 in. Fin length = 0.125 in.
Flow passage hydraelic diameter, 4Th = 0.006112 ft Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 4r5 = 0.00514 ft.
Fin metal thickness = 0.006 in., aluminum Fin metal thickness 0.00 6 in., aluminum
Splitter motel thickness 0.00 6 in. Total heat transfer area/volume between plates, i3 650 ft2/ft°
Total heat transfer area/volume between plates, j3 = 549.5 ft2/ft3 Fin area (including splitters)/total area = 0.882
Fin area (including splitter)/total area = 0.845

Fig. 10—65. Wavy-fin plate—fin surface 11.44—3/8W. Fig. 10—66. Wavy-fin plate—fin surface 11.5—3/8W.

Fin pitch 11.44 per in. Fin pitch 11.5 per in.
Plate spacing, b 0.413 in. Plate spacing, b = 0.375 in.
Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 4r,, 0.0 1060 ft Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 4Th 0.00993 ft
Fin metal thickness 0.006 in., aluminum Fin metal thickness 0.0 10 in., aluminum
Total heat transfer area/volume between plates, fi 351 ft2/ft3 Total heat transfer area/volume between plates, ~ 345 ft°/ft3
Fin area/total area = 0.847 Fin area/total area 0.822
Note: Hydraulic diameter based on free—flow urea normal to mean Note: Hydraulic diameter based on free—flow area normal to mean
flow direction. flow direction.
t’3
Ci
Fig. 10—67. Wavy—fin plate—fin surface 17.8—3/8W. Fig. 10—68. Pin—fin plate—fin surface AP—1.

.0562 ~ .43:

~
0775 APPROX
.05- — — — - - - ~ —~ — — — - - -
\~
.04--------~---~----_------

.03———--
\
~-

.02-——---—--
-BEST INTERPRETATION
.0I5-——-~~-
~d:
.0I0-~——-- ~—~—---————-—-—---

~~—--- ~~~~——----
.008~—--- ——~-——-~~.~-<——----

~
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.5 20 ~0 4.0 60 SO 100

Fin pitch= 17.8 per in. Pin diameter 0.04 in., copper
Plate spacing, b= 0.413 in. Pin pitch parallel to flow 0.125 in.
Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 4rh 0.00696 ft Pin pitch perpendicular to flow 0.125 in.
Fin metal thickness = 0.006 in., aluminum, Plate spacing, b 0.24 in.
Total heat transfer area/volume between plates, ~ 514 ft2/ft3 Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 4rh 0.0 1444 ft
Fin area/total area 0.89 2 Total heat transfer area/volume between plates, ~ 188 ft2/ft3
Note: Hydraulic diameter based on free—flow area normal to mean Fin area/total area = 0.5 12
flow direction.

Fig. 10—69. Pin—fin plate—fin surface AP—2. Fig. 10—70. Pin—fin plate—fin surface PF—3.

Pin diameter 0.04 in., copper Pin diameter 0.031 in., aluminum
Pin pitch parallel to flow 0.096 in. Pin pitch parallel to flow 0.062 in.
Pin pitch perpendicular to flow 0.12 in. Pin pitch perpendicular to flow 0.062 in.
Plate spacing, b 0.398 in. Plate spacing, b 0.750 in.
Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 4rh 0.01172 ft Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 4r5 0.00536 ft
Total heat transfer area/volume between plates, ~3 204 ft2/ft3 Total heat transfer area/volume between plates, f3 339 ft~/ft3
Fin area/total area 0.686 Fin area/total area 0.843
Note: Plates to which the pins are attached are corrugated with the
pins soldered into the corrugations.
Fig. 10—71. Pin—fin plate—fin surface PF—4(F). Fig. 10—72. Pin—fin plate—fin surface PF—9(F).

Pin diameter = 0.065 in., steel Pin diameter = 0.065 in., steel
Pin pitch parallel te flow = 0.125 in. Pin pitch parallel to flow = 0.19 6 in.
Pin pitch perpendicular to flow = 0.199 in. Pin pitch perpendicular to flow = 0.238 in.
Plate spacing, b = 0.502 in. Plate spacing, b 0.510 in.
Flow passage hydraulic diaweter, 4r~ = 0.0186 ft Flow passage hydraulic diameter, Ar,, = 0.0 297 ft
Total heat transfer area/volume between plates, i~ = 140 ft2/ft3 Total heat transfer area/volume between plates, 13 = 96.2 ft2/ft3
Fin area/total area = 0.704 Fin area/total area = 0.546
Note: Miniwum free—flow area is in spaces transverse to flow.

Fig. 10—73. Pin—fin plate—fin surface PF—10(F). Fig. 10—74. Perfarated—fin plate—fin surface 13.95(P).

Fin pitch 10.95 per in. Fin pitch 13.95 per in.
Fin perimeter 0.141 in., steel Plate spacing, b 0.200 in.
Fin cross—section area 0.00 104 in~ Fin center material perforated with 0.079 in. diameter holes spaced
Plate spacing, b 0.440 in. 32 per square in. en square pattern (16 per cent open)
Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 4rh 0.01426 ft Flew passage hydraulic diameter, 4r5 0.00822 ft
Total heat transfer area/volume between plates, ~3 214 ft2/ft3 Fin metal thickness 0.0 12 in., aluminum
Fin area/total area 0.693 Total heat transfer area/volume between plates, j3 381 ft2/ft3
Fin area/total area 0.705
Area in rim of holes included in fin area

I-k
cc
/
ry~ Fig. 10—75. Finned circular tubes, surface CF—7.34. Fig. 10—76. Finned circular tubes, surface CF—8.72.
C

Tube outside diameter = 0.38 in~ Tube outside diameter = 0.38 in.
Fin pitch = 7.34 par in. Fin pitch 8.72 per in.
Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 4r,, = 0.0 154 ft Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 4rh = 0.0 1288 ft
Fin thickness Cavarage)* = 0.018 in., aluminum Fin thickness (averagn)* 0.018 in., aluminum
Free—flow area/frontal area, a = 0.538 Free—flow area/Frontal area, a = 0.524
Heat transfer area/total volume, a = 140 ft2/ft3 Heat transfer ares/total volume, a = 163 ft2/ft3
Fin area/total area 0.89 2 Fin ares/total ares = 0.910
Note: Experimental uncertainty for heat transfer results possibly Note: Experimental uncertainty For heat transfer results possibly
somewhat greater than the nominal *5% quoted for tha other somewhat greater than the nominal ±5% quoted for the other
surfaces because of the necessity of estimating a contact surfaces because of tha necessity of estimating a contact
resistance in the bi—matal tubes. resistance in the bi—metal tubes.
* Fins slightly tap~rad. * Fins slightly tapered.

Fig. 10—77. Finned circular tubes, surface CF—8.72(c). Fig. 10—78. Finned circular tubes, surface CF—I 1.46
(frictian data anly).

Tube outside diameter 0.42 in. Tuba outside diameter 0.38 in.
Fin pitch 8.72 per in. Fin pitch = 11.46 per in.
Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 4rh 0.01452 ft Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 4rh 0.009 76 ft i t
Fin thickness Caveragn)* 0.019 in., copper Fin thickness Cavaraga)* 0.0 16 in., aluminum
Free—flow area/Frontal area, a 0.494 Free-flow area/frontal area, a = 0.510
Heat transfer area/total volume, a 136 ft2/ft3 Heat transfer area/total volume, a 209 ft2/ft3
Fin area/total area 0.876 Fin area/total area 0.931
~ Fins slightly tapered
Note: Heat transfer data not included for this surface because of the
large contribution of contact resistance between the bi—mntal
tubes and the large uncertainty in evaluating this resistance.
* Fins slightly tapered
~10-79.inned circular tubes, surface CF-7.0-5/8 J. Fig. 10—80. Finned circular tubes, surfaces CF—8.7—5/8 J.
-- ~(Data of Jameson.) (Data of Jameson.)

0.070
I Ill I I
‘3060 — — — — — B—
0.060 — — ~— -

0.050
1040 —.~ — — A
.- 0.040 —
—~ I I
‘3.030

3.020
~— —

— — I 121’
0030

0.020
:-~,.
-~4~
— i_I

-. __
~ -~ 0.645’i~ B
A 1.35’ o.II49”—.-j~ 4—~.o.oe
0.010 ~I36 0.M2~ ~ ±~~o.oio’ ~ TO SCALE FOR ‘A’
0.010 2:
0 SPACING S
0.006
~~-------~ (9
0.006 — — — — A 1.232’ ~

—•-~— N~IO3 —
0.006
‘9
— N5x lO~ — t~f B LB4B’
0 20 3.0 4.0 60 8.0 00 20 30 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 6.0 80 0.0

Tube outside diameter 0.645 in. Tube outside diameter 0.645 in.
Fin pitch 7.0 per in. Fin pitch = 8.7 per in.
Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 4rh = 0.0219 ft Fin thickness 0.0 10 in.
Fin thickness 0.0 10 in. Fin area/total area 0.862 A B
Free—flow area/frontal area, ~ 0.449 Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 4rh 0.0 1797 0.0383 ft.
Heat transfer area/total volume, a = 82 ft2/ft3 Free-flow area/frontal area, e 0.443 0.628
23
Fin area/total area = 0.830 Heat transfer area/total volume, a = 98.7 65.7 ft /ft
Note: Minimum free—flow area is in spaces transverse to flow. Note: Minimum free—flow area is in spaces transverse to flow.

- __j___ -‘ — -

Fig. 10—81. Finned circular tubes, surfaces CF—9.05—3/4J. Fig. 10—82. Finned circular tubes, surfaces CF—8.8—1.OJ.
(Data of Jameson.)
/ (Data of Jameson.)

Tube outside diameter 0.774 in. Tube outside diameter = 1.0 24 in.
Fin pitch 9.05 per in. Fin pitch 8.8 per in.
Fin thickness 0.0 12 in. Fin thickness = 0.0 12 in.
Fin area/total area 0.835 Fin area/total area 0.825 A B
Flow passage hydraulic A B C D E Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 4rh 0.01927 0.443 ft
diameter, 4rh 0.01681 0.02685 0.0445 0.01587 0.02108ft
Free-flow/frontal area, ~ 0.439 0.643
Free—flow area/frontal
area, ~ = 0.455 0.572 0.688 0.537 0.572 Heat transfer area/total volume, a 91.2 58.lft2/ft3
Heat transfer area/tota 3 Note: Minimum free—flow area is in spaces transverse to flow.
total volume, a 108 85.1 61.9 135 108 ft~/ft
Note: Minimum free—flow area in all cases occurs in the spaces transverse
to the flow, except forD, in which the minimum area is in the diagonals.
-; ~-

I
Fig. 10—83. Finned circular tubes, surface 8.0—3/8T. Fig. 10—84. Finned circular tubes, surface 7.75—5/8T.
(Data of Trane Company.) (Data of Trane Company.)

Tube outside diameter = 0.40 2 in. Tube outside diameter 0.676 in.
Fin pitch 8.0 per in. Fin pitch = 7.75 per in.
Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 4rh 0.01192ft Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 4rh = 0.0114 ft
Fin thickness = 0.013 in. Fin thickness 0.0 16 in.
Free—Flow area/Frontal area, ~ = 0.534 Free-Flow area/frontal area, ~ = 0.48 1
Heat transfer area/total volume, a 179~Ft2/ft3 Heat transfer area/total volume, a = 169 ft2/ft3
Fin area/total area 0.9 13 Fin area/total area = 0.950
Note: Minimum Free—Flow area in spaces transverse to flow. Note: Minimum free—flow area in spaces transverse to flow.

Fig. 10-85. Finned flat tubes, surface 9.68—0.87. Fig. 10—86. Finned flat tubes, surface 9.1—0.737—S.
I T I o.i~o’
kt
0.04~0~ - - -
- - - 1~~-1.o6--.t~
1 ~0.87d~ lit
0.030--I-- ~ - - —L — — - - -

0.020------

::1L
00018
~~—-
- - - “~- ~ST i.NT .ft ~ I
=

0.006———--
0.00~-- --
0.004~ —~~~~—---

0.003 — - - - - — N~ xiöZ3 (4r G/)i) — —

0.4 0.5 0.6 08 1.0 1.5 ao 3.0 4.0 60 .~Q ‘0.0


Fin pitch 9.68 per in. Fin pitch =9.1 per in.
Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 4Th 0.0 1180 ft Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 4rh 0.01380 ft
Fin metal thickness = 0.004 in., copper Fin metal thickness 0.004 in., copper
Free-flow area/frontal area, ~ 0.69 7 Free-Flow area/frontal area, ~ 0.788
Total heat transfer area/total volume, a 229 ft2/ft3 Total heat transfer area/total volume, a 224 ft2/ft3
Fin area/total area 0.795 Fin area/total area 0.813
Fig. 10—87. Finned flat tubes, surface 9.68—0.87—R. Fig. 10-88. Finned flat tubes, surface 9.29-0.737-SR.

I °~°° --
l~zz~ -
~60
050
~ - ~

~3o——---- —\-—

.~o——--
015 — -~ — - - ~— ~— =BEST INTERPRETATION —

~ ~

008-a —

—~-—--- ~--—
~

—---~
0o4-]———--- NR,lO3(4rhG~u)——----
0.4 0.5 Q6 OB .0 .5 2.0 ~0 4.0 60 60 I~Q._

Fin pitch 9.68 per in. Fin pitch = 9.29 per in.
Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 4r5 = 0.01180 ft Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 4rh = 0.01352 ft
Fin metal thickness 0.004 in., copper Fin metal thickness 0.004 in., copper
Free—flow area/frontal area, ~ = 0.69 7 Free—flow area/frontal area, o 0.788
Total heat transfer area/total volume, a =229 ft2/ft3 Total heat transfer area/total volume, a 228 ft2/ft3
Fin area/total area 0.795 Fin area/total area 0.8 14

— -. ‘--._ ....---- --.- . — —

Fig. 10—89. Finned flat tubes, surface 11.32—0.737—SR.

Fin pitch 11.32 per in.


Flow passage hydraulic diameter, 4Th = 0.01152 ft
Fin metal thickness 0.004 in., copper
Free—flow area/frontal area, e = 0.780
Total heat transfer area/total volume, a 270 ft2/ft3
Fin area/total area 0.845
‘.0

r-.
0
(‘.1

E
0
~0 C
‘—I
~0
0

0)
C ‘0
-)~
U
0

C
C

U
c\J
0

-o
0

0
U
‘.0
0

-~ d d
U..

228 229
Appendix A Material Properties
0

‘0

0
C

0 ‘0 To facilitate use of the design data in this book a number of charts of material proper
ties are presented in this appendix. It is not intended that this be an exhaustive com
a) ci- pilation of properties, since such compilations are readily available, but rather the
properties of a representative group of solids, liquids, and gases are presented so that
0
-o feasibility studies of heat exchangers can be made without seeking information
-o elsewhere.
0

0)
The thermal conductivities of a large group of metals used in heat-exchanger
C
construction are presented in Fig. A-i. For the most part, these have been plotted
C.)
0 from the data given by Eckert and Drake [1].
E 0 Figures A-2 to A-7 present the properties of a representative group of gases, all
0
~0 cC at 1 atm pressure. These are based primarily on Bureau of Standards Circular 564 [2]
C
0 but have been supplemented from other sources. For most applications these gases
‘0
a) may be treated as perfect gases for which the transport properties are independent
C)
of pressure, and the densities may be determined from the perfect gas equation of state
0 ci-
E P/p = (R/M )I~, where R is the universal gas constant, 1,545 ftlbt/(lbm mole °R),
-o and M is the molecular weight, ibm/Ibm mole.
0

The properties of steam are given in Fig. A-8 for two different pressures. These
a)
C\J are based on the Russian data presented by Nowak and Grosh [3].
0
The properties of saturated water (Fig. A-9) are based on reference 2. The liquid
(‘I oxygen and liquid hydrogen properties (Figs. A-b and A-li) are plotted from the
0
data of Scott [4].
-l ~ ‘0 ci- Figures A- 12 to A- 14 include the properties of some characteristic hydrocarbon
00 0 0
U- d~ c c fuels and oils, plotted from data in reference 5. The data on liquid metals (Figs. A-i5
0 0 0
to A-17) have been taken from the Liquid Metals Handbook [6].
Figures A-i 8 to A-20 contain correction factors that may be used to determine
the density and specific heats of humid air and of the products of combustion of air
and hydrocarbon fuels. In each case the factor is to be multiplied by the density or
specific heat of dry air at the temperature and pressure of the mixture.
230
232 Compact Heat Exchangers Appendix A Material Properties 233

References Fig. A—2. Transport properties of air at I atm.

1. Eckert, E. R. G., and R. M. Drake: “Heat and Mass Transfer,” McGraw-Hill Book Company,
New York, 1959.
2. Hilsenrath, J., Ct al: Tables of Thermal Properties of Gases, Nati. Bur. Standards Circ. 564, Novem
ber, 1955.
3. Nowak, E. S., and R.J. Grosh: An Investigation of Certain Thermodynamic and Transport Proper
ties of Water and Water Vapor in the Critical Region, Argsnne Nati. Lab. ANL 6064, 1959.
4. Scott, R. B.: “Cryogenic Engineering,” D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., Princeton, N.J., 1959.
5. “Aero-space Applied Thermodynamics Manual,” Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., February,
1960.
6. “Liquid Metals Handbook,” R. N. Lyon, editor-in-chiel U.S. Government Printing Office, 2d ed., N~,
1952; NAVEXOS P-733 (rev.).

Fig. A—I. Thermal conductivity of some metals.


Cp k

40C

300
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000
-..~~___ PURE SILVER
t, °F
200 C~~~t.~___.__

PURE ALUMINUM

~
—I
106 7~—__..~~ESIUM

80 ~ ~EIR0N LYBD EN U M Fig. A—3. Transport properties of oxygen gas at 1 atm.


BRASS 70-30~

60 —

50~________
Ii

40 1.0
NICKEL
~ 0.9
30

0.01 CARBON STEEL
-_
0.8

20 UM 0.7
— INCONEL X
0.3 0.6
Np,
STAINLESS STEEL Cp k 0.5
10 ~4
0.2 0.4
8—
0.3
6—
5 0.1 0.2

‘1..........—... 0.1

0 0
—300 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 —200 0 200 400 600 800 1,000
t, °F t, °F
234 Compact Heat Exchangers
Appendix A Material Properties 235
Fig. A—4. Transport properties of nitrogen gas at 1 atm.
Fig. A—6. Transport properties of helium gas at 1 atm.
~.3O
0.1 HELIUM GAS
1 ATMOSPHERE
0.25
1.0 0.10 —

k, Btu/(hr ft2 CF/ft)— ~ — — k


0.8 0.20 2.0

Npr

0.6
0.8
ii

0.06
0.08

0.6 ~ 0.15 1.5

0.4 0.04
0.3

0.2
Cp
N Pr
0.4 : cp,Btu/Ob~F) — = J.10 1.0
cP

/ — — ~i,Ibs/(hrft)— -~
0.2 — 7 — — 3.05 0.5
0.2 0.0:
0.1 /—---

0— 0
0 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
0 0 t, °F
500 1,000 1,500 2,000
t, ~F

Fig. A—5. Transport properties of hydrogen gas at 1 atm.

0.8 Fig. A—7. Transport properties of carbon dioxide gas at 1 atm.


N Pr

0.7

0.6 1.0 0.05

0.9
4.0 0.4 0.8 0.04
/2
cP 0.7 k
N~, /2
3.0 0.3 0.6 0.03 0.3
k 0.5 Cp

2.0 0.2 0.4 0.02 0.2


0.3
1.0 0.1 0.2 0.01 0.1
0.1
0 0 0
1,000 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
t, ~F t, °F
236 Compact Heat Exchangers
Appendix A Material Properties 237

Fig. A—9. Transport properties of saturated liquid water.


Fig. A—B. Transport properties of steam at 1 atm. and at 1,000 psi. 14

SATURATED
1.10 12

c~,Btu/0b°F)—~-
5.0 1.00 10
.08
-.E-----—
F--_
k Btu/(hr ft2 CF/ft)
Cp

0.4 4.0 0.90 8

~ 80
0.3 3.0 ~ ~, lbs/ft3~ 60 6
k ~ p Np,
~
0.2 2.0 4

Np,
0.1 1.0 ~\ 40
2
~ 20

~.E— )~, I bs/(hr~~ zz


0 I I q
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
t, °F

Fig. A—10. Transport properties of liquid oxygen.

LIQUID
k ~ OXYGEN
cp
0.12
: k,L/(Lf~~F/f~)
6.0

0.10 100
~ 2.0
1.8
5.0

~
.080 1.6 4.0
k p
\ ~ ~ p, lbs/ft3 1.4
~ SAT. /2
0.6 .060 3.0
::zr~t~: 1.2

0.5 .05 1.0

0.4 .040 40 — — — ~ c-H 0.8 2.0


Cp ~ ~* Cp, Btu/(Ib~F)
0.3 .03 0.6
0.2 .020 26 — — ~i, Ibs/ hr ft) —
0.4 1.0
0 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 0.1 .01 0.2
t, °F BOILING POINT
0 0 C 0 0
—400 —350 —300 —250 —200 —150
t, °F
238 Compact Heat Exchangers Appendix A Material Properties 239
Fig. A—fl. Transport properties of liquid hydrogen.
Fig. A-13. Transport properties of hydraulic fluid MIL-H-5606.

0.10 0.6 60

0.09 p
1.8
0.08 0.5 .10 500 1,000 50
1.6
.09
0.07 1.4
Npr 0.4 .08 400 40
6 0.06
1.2
Cp .07 I.~
5 0.05 N Pr
1.0
p j~ 0.3 .06 300
4 0.04 k
0.8 .05
3 0.03 0.2 .04
cP
2 0.02 .03

1 0.01 0.1 .02

0 .01
—440 —430 —420 —410 —400 —390
0 0
t, °F —50 0 50 100 150 200 250
t, ~F

Fig. A—14. Transport properties of a typical aircraft engine oil.


Fig. A—12. Transport properties of JP—4 fuel.
700
60
ENGINE
OIL
0.6 600 3,000 60
0.10 10.0
50 p, ~ p
0.09 9.0 Np,
0.5 .10 500 2,500 50
0.08 8.0 0.6 40 .09 ~-

0.07 7.0 0.4 .08 400 2,000 40


-~~_
~— k, Btu/(hr ft2 CF/ft)
0.06 0.5 30 Cp .07 1’ Npr

cP 0.3 .06 300 1,500


k
.05
20
~ — c~, Btu/(Ib°F)
0.2 .04 230 1,000
.03
10
0.1 .02 1OC
~~,Ibs/(hr~
.01

0 0 C L)
—50 0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
t, °F t, ~F
240 Compact Heat Exchangers Appendix A Material Properties 241

Fig. A—15. Transport properties of liquid mercury. Fig. A—17. Transport properties of liquid potassium.

LIQUID
0.030 0.30 30 60 1.2
1.1
— k, Btu/(hr ft2 O~/ft)

900 10 0.025 .010 0.25 25 50 1.0


9 ~ p 0.9

800 8 0.020 .04 4 .008 0.20 20 40 0.8


-.E——— ci,, Btu/(Ib~F) ~

7 Npr Cp 0.7

600 6 0.015 3 .006 0.15 15 \N 30 0.6

p 5 cP N~, 0.5

400 4 .02 2 .004 0.10 10 ~ ~ M~ ~


Ibs/(hr ft) ~ 0.4
-~-— N ~~—_ ..—.------

3 IL 0.3
200 2 0. .01 1 .002 0.05 5 0.2
1 0.1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400
t, ~F t, °F

Fig. A—16. Transport properties of liquid sodium.

Fig. A-18. Humidity correction factors for


density and specific heat.
k ~~ c~ —X0,~ Cpa
0.40

1.4 .014
0.30 30 1.2 .012
IL
Cp 1.0 .010
N Pr
0.20 20 0.8 .008
0.6 .006
0O23Q4Th~
0.10 10 0.4 .004 ~

.002
0 0 0